THE   REORGANIZATION   OF    SPAIN 
BY  AUGUSTUS 


A  THESIS  SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  SATISFACTION  OF 

THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


BY 


JOHN  JAMES  VAN  NOSTRAND,  Jr. 


May,  1915 


UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

HISTORY 


Vol.  4,  No.  2,  pp.  83-154 


THE  REORGANIZATION  OF  SPAIN 
BY  AUGUSTUS 


JOHN  JAMES  VAN  NOSTRAND,  Jr. 
Instructor  in  History  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   PRESS 
BERKELEY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS  IN  HISTORY 

Henry  Morse  Stephens  and  Herbert  Eugene  Bolton,  Editors 

Vol.  1.    Studies  in  American  History. 

1.  Colonial  Opposition  to  Imperial  Authority  During  the  French  and  Indian 

Wars,  by  Eugene  Irving  McCormac.    Pp.  1-98. 

2.  The  Viceroy  of  New  Spain,  by  Donald  E.  Smith.    Pp.  99-293. 

3.  The  Beginnings  of  Spanish  Settlement  in  the  El  Paso  District,  by  Anne 

E.  Hughes.    Pp.  295-392. 
Index,  pp.  393-406. 
In  paper  cover,  $2.75;  cloth,  $3.00. 


Vol.  2. 


Vol.  3. 


Vol.  4. 


A  History  of  the  Western  Boundary  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  1819-1841, 
by  Thomas  Maitland  Marshall.    Pp.  xiii  +  266,  30  maps.    December,  1914. 
In  paper  cover,  $1.75;  cloth,  $2.00. 

Texas  in  the  Middle  Eighteenth  Century,  by  Herbert  Eugene  Bolton.    P_o. 

x  -f  501,  11  plates  and  map.    December,  1915. 
In  paper  cover,  $3.25;  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Influence  of  Anthropology  on  the  Course  of  Political  Science,  by  John 

Linton  Myres.    Pp.  1-81.    February,  1916. 
In  paper  cover,  $0.75. 

2.  The  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus,  by  John  James  Van  Nostrand,  Jr. 

Pp.  83-154.     October,  1916. 
In  paper  cover,  $0.75. 

3.  Prolegomena  to  History:  The  Relation  of  History  to  Literature,  Philosophy, 

and  Science,  by  Frederick  J.  Teggart.    Pp.  155-292.    August,  1916. 
In  paper  cover,  $1.50. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

HISTORY 

Vol.  4  No.  2 


ERRATA 

Page  107,  note  9.     For  See  Map  II  read  See  Map  I. 
Page  116,  line  19.     For  Criterior  read  Citerior. 
Map  II.     Baetus  F.  should  be  Baetis  F. 


BERKELEY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 

1916 


Vol.  4. 


In  paper  cover,  Jt>3.i*£>;  cioxn,  «j>a.ou. 

1.  The  Influence  of  Anthropology  on  the  Course  of  Political  Science,  by  John 

Linton  Myres.    Pp.  1-81.    February,  1916. 
In  paper  cover,  $0.75. 

2.  The  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus,  by  John  James  Van  Nostrand,  Jr. 

Pp.  83-154.     October,  1916. 
In  paper  cover,  $0.75. 

3.  Prolegomena  to  History:  The  Relation  of  History  to  Literature,  Philosophy, 

and  Science,  by  Frederick  J.  Teggart.    Pp.  155-292.    August,  1916. 
In  paper  cover,  $1.50. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

HISTORY 

Vol.  4  No.  2 


THE  REORGANIZATION  OP  SPAIN  BY 
AUGUSTUS 


BY 


JOHN  JAMES  VAN  NOSTRAND,  Jr. 

Instructor  in  History  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 


BERKELEY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 

1916 


THE  REORGANIZATION  OF  SPAIN  BY 
AUGUSTUS 

JOHN  JAMES  VAN  NOSTRAND,  Jr. 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

A  knowledge  of  the  chief  geographic  features  of  Spain  and  its 
position  with  reference  to  other  parts  of  the  Mediterranean 
World  is  essential  to  an  understanding  of  its  history,  particularly 
the  history  of  the  Roman  conquest.  Separated  from  Italy  by  a 
broad  expanse  of  sea  and  by  untamed  Gallic  tribes,  the  Iberian 
peninsula  was  difficult  of  access  to  the  Romans.  It  was  much 
more  closely  joined  by  nature  to  Africa  than  to  Europe,  and  the 
larger  rivers,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Ebro,  appeared  to 
welcome  invasion  from  the  south  and  west  rather  than  from  the 
northern  or  eastern  sides.  After  overcoming  these  obstacles  the 
Romans  had  to  adapt  their  tactics  to  meet  guerilla  opposition 
and  their  strategy  to  the  conquest  of  small  and  loosely  joined 
political  units,  both  the  results  of  the  geographical  configuration 
of  the  peninsula.  Final  Roman  victory  was  then  as  much  a  con- 
quest of  nature  as  of  man. 

The  history  of  Spain  reaches  far  into  the  past.  Phoenicians, 
Greeks  and  Carthaginians  added  their  quota  to  a  civilization  in 
which  Iberian  and  Celtic  elements  were  combined.  It  remained 
for  the  Romans  to  unite  and  organize  these  different  constituents 
and  to  make  the  Iberian  peninsula  an  integral  part  of  their  great 
imperial  domain.  This  was  not  the  work  of  one  man,  nor  of  one 
brief  period  of  time,  but  the  activities  of  Augustus  and  the  re- 
organization of  27-2  B.C.  marked  the  beginnings  of  a  systematic 
administration  which  endured.  The  aim  of  this  study  is  to  esti- 
mate the  value  of  that  organization  by  a  survey  of  the  political 
and  administrative  history  of  Spain  from  218  to  19  B.C.,  by  an 
examination  of  the  reorganization  of  Spain  under  Augustus,  and 
by  an  attempt  to  gauge  its  continuity  during  the  first  century  of 
this  era. 


84  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 


I.  THE  ROMAN  CONQUEST  OF  SPAIN,  218-19  B.C. 

The  growth  of  Carthaginian  power  in  Spain,  after  the  first 
Punic  War,  had  not  failed  to  attract  the  attention  of  Rome,  but 
no  thought  of  Spain  as  a  possible  base  of  military  operations 
against  Italy  appears  to  have  entered  the  minds  of  Roman  gen- 
erals or  statesmen.  It  is  true  that  in  226  B.C.  a  treaty  signed 
by  Hasdrubal  defined  the  northern  limit  of  Carthaginian  sway.1 
This  treaty  made  the  river  Ebro  the  boundary  of  Carthaginian 
expansion  in  Spain.  Rome  might  and  did  make  alliances  south 
of  the  line,  but  Carthage  could  not  advance  north  of  it.  It 
rested,  then,  with  Rome  to  enforce  the  treaty,  that  is,  to  protect 
the  territory  north  of  the  Ebro  and  to  support  her  allies.2  But 
the  failure  to  realize  the  Barcid  menace  and  the  engagement  of 
her  forces  in  Illyricum  and  Cisalpine  Gaul  caused  Rome  to  leave 
the  guardianship  of  this  frontier  to  the  free  Greek  city-states  of 
northeastern  Spain.  The  result  of  this  shirking  of  responsibility 
was  the  capture  of  Saguntum  by  Hannibal  in  219  B.C.3  and  the 
unopposed  march  of  the  Carthaginian  forces  into  Italy. 

Shortly  after  the  outbreak  of  the  second  war  between  Rome 
and  Carthage,  P.  Cornelius  Scipio,  consul,  was  ordered  to  Spain.4 
The  news  of  Hannibal's  rapid  advance,  however,  led  him  to  turn 
back  at  Massilia,  after  entrusting  to  his  brother  Gnaeus  com- 
mand of  the  fleet  and  army  designed  for  the  Spanish  campaign.5 
Beginning  at  Emporiae  the  Roman  forces  gradually  fought  their 
way  southwards  along  the  coast,  until  the  year  212  B.C.,  when  the 
destruction  of  the  Roman  army  and  the  loss  of  both  leaders 


1  This  unusual  policy  of  diplomatic  interference  in  extra-Italian  affairs 
was  probably  the  result  of  appeals  by  Massilia,  a  friend  of  Rome  and  com- 
mercial rival  of  Carthage.  Frank,  Roman  Imperialism,  121  ff.  On  the 
treaty  see  Poly.  2,  13,  7;  3,  27,  9.    App.  Iber.  7.    Livy  21,  2. 

2  Precedents  were  not  lacking.  Rome  had  agreed  to  maritime  restric- 
tions imposed  by  Carthage  and  by  Tarentum.  The  treaty  with  Hasdrubal 
was  simply  an  application  of  the  same  principle  to  military  operations, 
with  the  difference  that  Rome  dictated  the  terms  in  this  case. 

3  Livy  21,  6-9;  11-15.    Poly.  3,  17.    App.  Iber.  10. 

4  218  B.C.    Livy  21,  26.    Poly.  3,  45. 

5  Livy  21,  61.    Poly.  3,  76. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       85 

again  gave  to  the  Carthaginians  control  of  all  the  territory  south 
of  the  Ebro.6  The  brilliant  campaigns  of  the  Younger  Scipio 
restored  Roman  supremacy,  and  resulted  in  the  expulsion  of  the 
Carthaginians  from  Spain.7 

At  this  point  Rome  assumed  the  responsibility  of  imperial 
control  of  her  newly  acquired  possessions.  Military  operations 
were  commenced  against  those  tribes  which  had  not  acknowl- 
edged the  suzerainty  of  Rome,  the  city  of  Italica  was  founded, 
and  new  provincial  officials  were  appointed.8  The  emphasis  still 
remained  upon  the  military  side  of  occupation,  for  the  tribes  ac- 
cepted Roman  authority  with  as  little  grace  as  they  had  that  of 
the  Carthaginians.  From  207  B.C.,  revolt,  submission,  oppres- 
sion and  revolt  followed  in  dreary  repetitions  steeped  in  blood 
and  filled  with  horrors;  at  times  the  unemotional  virtues  of  a 
Cato,9  or  the  humanity  of  a  Gracchus10  offered  hopes  of  speedy 
and  permanent  submission,  but  their  examples  were  not  followed 
and  the  grinding  process  of  a  merciless  conquest  went  on  until 
the  natives  were  exhausted.  The  methods  of  warfare  employed 
in  subjugating  and  controlling  the  Spanish  tribes  need  not  be 
described.11  A  brief  review,  however,  of  the  direction  and  ex- 
tent of  Roman  sway  is  necessary  as  a  basis  for  a  more  detailed 
study  of  the  romanization  of  Spain  under  Augustus. 

The  territory  held  by  the  Romans  in  206  B.C.12  comprised  the 
eastern  coastline  from  Emporiae  in  the  north  to  Carthago  Nova. 
The  capture  of  Gades  in  206  B.C.  had  given  the  Romans  a  foot- 
hold on  the  Atlantic  coast  as  well.  In  other  words,  practically 
all  the  Greek  and  Carthaginian  settlements  had  fallen  into  their 
hands.    Of  the  native  tribes,  many  had  been  subdued  and  others 


«  Livy,  25,  32-36.    App.  Iber.  16. 

7  Livy  26,  41-51;  27,  17-20;  28,  1-4;  12-16;  19-38. 

s  Livy  28,  38;  29,  1-3,  5,  13;  30,  2,  27.  App.  Iber.  38.  Poly.  11,  25-33. 
Flor.  2,  17,  7. 

9  Livy  34,  8-21,  26;  35,  10.     App.  Iber.  40-41. 

io  Livy  40,  35;  44,  47-50.  App.  Iber.  43.  Diodor.  29,  26.  Plut.  Tib. 
Gracch.  1,  5.    Poly.  26,  4.    Flor.  2,  17,  9.    Oros.  4,  20.     Cic.  Brut.  27,  104. 

11  For  an  ingenious  but  improbable  defense  of  Koine  see  Frank,  op.  cit., 
129,  230. 

12  See  Map.  III. 


86  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

made  allies  of  the  Roman  people.    These  were  the  groups  nearest 
the  military  posts  of  the  Romans. 

This  territory  Scipio  handed  over  to  his  successors,  the  first 
two  provincial  governors  sent  out  by  Rome.13  These  two  men, 
not  of  consular  rank  though  granted  proconsular  power,  were 
given  as  separate  military  districts  the  territories  known  as 
Hither  and  Farther  Spain.  It  was  thought  that  the  provinces 
would  remain  pacified,  and  so  the  number  of  troops  was  re- 
duced.14 But  the  military  strength  of  the  interior  tribes  was 
underestimated.  The  obstinate  defense  of  the  natives  together 
with  the  lack  of  continuity  arising  from  frequent  changes  in 
commanders  of  the  invading  forces  reduced  Roman  advance  to  a 
minimum.  In  the  year  197  B.C.  the  increasing  importance  of  the 
new  province  was  recognized,  and  resulted  in  the  election  of  two 
additional  praetors  to  replace  the  two  temporary  proconsular 
officials.15 

News  of  more  serious  outbreaks  led,  in  196  B.C.,  to  the  assign- 
ment of  one  Roman  legion  to  each  province,16  and  in  195  B.C.  one 
of  the  consuls,  M.  Porcius  Cato,  was  sent  to  Spain.17  The  suc- 
cesses of  Cato  offered  a  marked  contrast  to  the  doubtful  or  fruit- 
less victories  of  his  predecessors.  Under  his  leadership  the 
Romans  subdued  the  eastern  half  of  the  peninsula.1  *  But  either 
through  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  or  for  local  politi- 
cal reasons,19  the  provinces  were  declared  pacified,  and  the  con- 
trol passed  back  in  194  B.C.  to  the  regularly  appointed  praetors. 
From  that  date  up  to  171  b.c.  the  Roman  advance  was  uneven. 
A  defeat  of  Aemilius  Paulus  in  190  B.C.  was  offset  by  a  victory 


13  Livy  28,  38.  App.  Iber.  38.  This  division  was  probably  made  in 
order  that  one  governor  might  watch  the  Celtiberi  from  the  east  while  the 
other  watched  the  Lusitani  from  the  south. 

14  Livy  30,  41. 

15  Livy  32,  27-28;  33,  25.     App.  Iber.  39. 
i6  Livy  33,  26.     App.  Iber.  39. 

«  See  note  9. 

i«A  striking  proof  of  the  weakness  of  the  Romans  is  to  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  Cato's  first  step  was  to  drive  a  native  force  from  Rhodae  at 
the  extreme  northwest  of  the  peninsula. 

i»  A  desire  to  thwart  the  ambitions  of  the  younger  Scipio.  See  Heit- 
land,  Roman  Republic,  IT,  43. 


1916J   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       87 

later  in  the  same  year.20  Discontent  began  to  appear  not  only 
among  the  legionaries,  but  even  among  the  commanders;21  due 
in  the  former  case  to  the  length  of  service,  the  distance  from 
home,  and  the  hardships  of  the  Spanish  campaigns;  the  official 
unrest  being  a  proof  that  Spain  was  not  the  most  convenient 
place  for  refilling  one's  purse,  or  for  the  social  and  intellectual 
diversions  which  made  Greece  such  an  attractive  field  of  opera- 
tions.22 The  pecuniary  disadvantages  of  a  Spanish  command  did 
not  come  from  the  poverty  of  the  peninsula,  for  Cato  had  brought 
to  Rome  booty  which  rivalled  in  amount  the  spoils  returned  from 
the  Eastern  provinces.  They  were  due  to  the  long  campaigns 
which  left  little  time  for  systematized  looting,  to  the  wholesale 
destruction  of  their  own  property  by  the  Spanish  tribes,  and 
finally  to  the  work  of  Tiberius  Sempronius  Gracchus,  praetor  in 
Hither  Spain  180-179  b.cv  who  adopted  a  policy  of  justice  and 
kindness  towards  both  subject  and  allied  states,  based  on  treaties 
which  remained  in  force  for  twenty-three  years.  As  a  result  of 
the  subsequent  interest  in  Spanish  affairs  displayed  by  Cato  and 
Gracchus,  and  partly  as  a  result  of  the  readiness  of  the  provin- 
cials to  demand  justice,23  Spain  enjoyed  two  decades  of  peace. 
But  the  mismanagement  of  the  Roman  governors  caused  two  out- 
breaks which  threatened  to  overthrow  the  power  of  the  con- 
querors. 

In  156  B.C.  the  Lusitani  commenced  a  war  which  lasted,  with 
brief  intermissions,  for  twenty-three  years.  In  the  year  153 
B.C.  the  Celtiberi  revolted.24  M.  Fulvius  Nobilior,  who  was  sent 
out  to  reconquer  them,  was  but  the  first  of  fifteen  consuls  who 
commanded  armies  in  Spain  between  the  years  153  and  133  B.C.25 


20  Livy  37,  46.    Oros.  4,  20. 

21  App.  Iber.  49.    For  mutiny  in  206  B.C.  see  Livy  28,  19-38. 

22  N.  Feliciani,  "L'Espagne  a  la  fin  du  Hie  siecle  avant  J.  C,"  Boletin 
de  Ja  Beal  Academia  de  la  Historia,  XLVI,  363-398,  presents  strong  argu- 
ments against  the  traditional  view  that  the  wealth  of  Spain  was  inex- 
haustible. But  Cato  had  encouraged  local  industries  and  the  treaties  of 
Gracchus  protected  them.  The  true  condition  lay  midway  between  extreme 
wealth  and  extreme  poverty. 

23  App.  Iber.  49.     Livy  43,  2. 

24  App.  Iber.  44. 

25  Schulten,  Numantia,  266-268. 


88  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [v°l.  4 

This  was  the  last  concerted  struggle  for  freedom  on  the  part  of 
the  Spanish  tribes.  Its  measure  of  success  was  due  not  only  to 
the  incompetence  of  the  Roman  generals,  but  also  to  the  unity  of 
the  tribesmen  and  their  knowledge  of  Roman  tactics.  It  failed 
because  Rome  at  last  found  capable  commanders,  and  because  the 
natives,  unable  to  throw  off  for  long  their  tribal  and  personal 
jealousies,  lost  sight  of  the  value  of  co-operation  and  destroyed 
their  leader.  The  highest  expression  of  Spanish  national  feeling 
was  displayed  by  their  commander,  Viriathus.26  But  his  per- 
sonality alone  could  not  hold  together  the  forces  he  had  gathered 
and  his  death  at  the  hands  of  assassins  marked  the  end  of  all  gen- 
eral opposition  to  Roman  arms.  The' fires  of  revolt  still  burned 
in  scattered  sections  of  the  country,  but  the  next  few  years  were 
marked  by  a  steady  increase  of  Roman  victories.  Resistance 
came  to  an  end  with  the  capture  and  utter  destruction  of 
Numantia,  a  city  of  the  Celtiberi,  which  had  held  the  armies  of 
Rome  at  bay  for  ten  years.27 

After  133  B.C.  Spain,  for  the  most  part,  submitted  to  Roman 
rule.  The  emphasis,  save  on  the  borders  of  the  provinces,  shifted 
from  military  to  civil,  that  is,  administrative  affairs.  In  132  B.C. 
a  commission  of  ten  senators  was  sent  to  establish  a  form  of  civil 
government  for  the  provinces.28  Romanization  went  on  rapidly 
during  the  years  of  peace.  Roads  were  built,  Roman  traders 
penetrated  the  interior,  Spanish  troops  served  in  the  Roman 
armies,  and  returned  with  Roman  ideas,  language,  customs,  and 
dress.  Tribute  was  levied  in  the  most  acceptable  manner,  in  the 
form  of  a  stipendium,  a  fixed  amount  payable  directly  to  the 
Roman  government.29  Thus  the  Two  Spains  escaped  the  trials  of 
those  provinces  whose  taxes  were  collected  by  the  puUicani.  The 
reports  offered  by  the  historians  of  this  period  bear  witness  to 
the  peaceful  spirit  which  characterized  the  years  after  the  fall 


26  App.  Iber.  50-75.  Diodor.  32-33.  Livy  ep.  52-54.  Oros.  5,  4.  Flor. 
2,  17. 

27  App.  Iber.  76-97.  Livy  ep.  54-59.  Flor.  2,  18.  Veil.  2,  1.  Oros.  5, 
4-5.  Plut.  Tib.  Gracch.  5-7.  All  modern  accounts  have  been  superseded 
by  the  Numantia  of  Schulten. 

28  App.  Iber.  99. 

20  Livy  43,  2.    Cf.  Frank,  op.  cit.,  129. 


1916]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       89 

of  Numantia.  An  expedition  against  the  Baleares  in  124-123 
B.C.,30  and  an  uprising  in  112  b.c.  in  Farther  Spain31  were  the 
only  hints  of  warfare  from  133  to  105  b.c.  At  the  latter  date, 
incited  by  the  weakness  of  Rome  as  exhibited  in  her  defeats  at 
the  hands  of  the  Teutons  and  of  Jugurtha,  the  Lusitani  revolted. 
By  101  b.c.  this  revolt  was  apparently  crushed  by  D.  Junius 
Silanus.  During  the  following  year,  however,  L.  Cornelius  Dola- 
bella  continued  the  Lusitanian  campaign.32  A  rebellion  of  the 
Vaccaei  in  98  b.c.  was  put  down  with  cruelty  and  treachery  by 
the  consul,  Lucius  Didius,  in  whose  army  there  served  as  mili- 
tary tribune,  Quintus  Sertorius.  So  serious  was  this  outbreak 
that,  even  though  assisted  by  P.  Licinius  Crassus,  proconsul  in 
Hither  Spain,  Didius  was  forced  to  remain  in  his  province  for 
five  years  before  his  work  was  completed.33 

In  the  year  83  b.c.  began  the  Sertorian  War.34  It  marked 
the  beginning  of  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  Rome,  being  the 
first  contest  in  which  a  Roman  leader  conducted  a  civil  war, 
using  a  Roman  province  as  a  base.  Throughout  the  war  there 
was  no  desire  expressed  for  independence  from  Rome.  Sertorius 
proclaimed  himself  the  legal  ruler  of  Hither  Spain,  fighting 
against  usurpers.  Like  Caesar,  he  was  the  champion  of  the  Con- 
stitution ;  like  Vespasian,  his  designs  were  on  Rome.  For  eleven 
years  Sertorius,  aided  by  Marian  troops  and  native  levies,  held 
his  own  against  consular  armies  and  famous  generals.  His  down- 
fall, like  that  of  Viriathus,  was  due  to  the  lack  of  unity  among 
his  followers  and  the  treachery  of  his  officers.  After  his  assas- 
sination the  war  came  quickly  to  an  end. 

The  importance  of  Spain  in  Roman  politics  did  not  cease  with 
the  overthrow  of  the  Sertorian  party.  Seven  years  later,  in  65 
B.C.,  Gn.  Calpurnius  Piso  was  sent  to  Spain  as  quaestor  proprae- 


30  Livy  ep.  60. 
si  App.  Iber.  99. 

32  Sext.  Rufus,  4.    CIL,  I,  p.  460. 

33  App.  Iber.  99.     Plut.  Sertor.  3.     Livy  ep.  70.     Strabo  3,  5,  11.     Cf. 
Wilsdorf,  Leipziger  Studien,  I,  64  ff. 

s^  App.  Iber.  101.    App.  B.  C.  I,  108-115.     Oros.  5,  23.     Livy  ep.  91-93. 
Plut.  Sertor. 


90  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

tore,  with  the  evident  purpose  of  establishing  there  a  military 
base  for  the  Catilinarian  conspirators.35  The  murder  of  Piso 
put  an  end  to  this  plan,  and  it  was  not  until  61  B.C.  that  Spain 
again  appeared  to  play  its  part  in  extra-local  affairs.  On  this 
occasion  it  merely  offered  to  Julius  Caesar  a  field  for  the  restora- 
tion of  his  finances  and  for  military  exploits.30  The  results  of 
Caesar's  years  were  satisfactory  to  both  parties  concerned ;  for  he 
returned  to  Rome  free  from  debt,  and  with  successful  campaigns 
in  the  north  and  northwest  to  his  credit,  while  the  Spanish  people 
congratulated  themselves  over  reduced  taxes,  just  government 
and  excellent  administration. 

Spain,  as  a  strategic  point  in  the  struggles  of  the  next  few 
years,  became  the  battleground  of  factional  fighting.  Pompey 
gained  the  Two  Spains  as  his  province  in  the  year  55  b.c.,37  was 
allowed  to  retain  them  for  a  five-year  period,  and  might  have 
been  the  first  of  the  Caesars  had  he  made  use  of  his  legions  there. 
But  the  men  of  that  generation,  with  the  exception  of  Caesar,  be- 
lieved that  Rome  was  still  the  center  of  imperial  strength.  Fol- 
lowing this  idea,  Pompey  remained  in  the  capital,  conducting 
the  government  of  Spain  through  legati.  In  the  contest  between 
Pompey  and  Caesar,  Spain  was  the  first  Pompeian  province  to 
be  attacked.  A  brief  and  merciful  campaign  resulted  in  the  sub- 
mission of  Pompey 's  legions  and  the  Spanish  tribes  to  Caesar.38 

The  harsh  government  of  Caesar's  lieutenant,  Q.  Cassius 
Longinus,  led  to  a  revolt  which  was  apparently  crushed  by  the 
battle  of  Munda.30  But  the  memory  of  Cassius'  oppressions  led 
the  provincials  to  place  their  men  and  resources'  at  the  disposal 
of  the  Republicans  fighting  against  the  heirs  of  Caesar.  For  some 


35  Sallust  Cat.  19,  Sueton.  Caesar  9.  Dio  36,  44.  Cic.  Sull.  24,  67  ff. 
Cic.  Mur.  38,  82. 

3«  Sueton.  Caesar  18.  Plut.  Caesar  5,  11-12.  Livy  ep.  103.  App.  B.  C. 
2,  8.    App.  Iber.  102.    Cic.  Balb.  19,  43.    Dio  37,  52-53. 

37  Livy  ep.  105.  Flor.  4,  2,  12.  Eutrop.  6,  18.  Veil.  2,  48,  1.  App. 
B.  C.  2,  18.  Dio  39,  33.  Caesar  B.  C.  6,  1.  Pint.  Crassus  15-16.  Plut. 
Caesar  28,  36. 

38  Dio  41,  22.  Cic.  ep.  ad  Att.  10,  8-18.  Caesar  B.  C.  1,  37-55,  59-87; 
2,  17-21.    Sueton.  Caesar  34. 

so  Dio  42,  15-16;  43,  28-42.  App.  B.  C.  2,  103-106.  Plut.  Caesar  56. 
Veil.  2,  55.     Livy  ep.  116.     Ovid  Fasti  3,  715. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       91 

time  Sextus  Pompey,  a  son  of  the  great  Gnaeus,  held  Spain.40 
His  departure  for  Sicily  left  the  province  in  the  hands  of 
Lepidus,  the  triumvir.  A  period  of  peace  followed,  enduring  to 
27  B.C.  In  that  year  Augustus  commenced  a  campaign  against 
the  Cantabri  and  the  Astures  which  rounded  out  the  Roman  con- 
quest, making  the  peninsula  a  political  unit. 

II.  THE  CIVIL  ADMINISTKATION  OF  SPAIN,  218-27  B.C, 
That  Rome  entered  upon  her  series  of  conquests  without 
preparation,  if  not  without  real  desire  for  expansion,1  is  demon- 
strated in  the  early  history  of  the  Spanish  provinces.  The  first 
commander  there,  a  consul,  delegated  his  power  to  a  legatus,  nor 
did  he  reach  Spain  until  the  year  following  his  appointment. 2 
This  indication  of  unpreparedlTess-was  supplemented  by  the  ir- 
regularities attendant  upon  the  election  of  the  younger  Scipio 
to  command  the  armies  in  Spain.3  Proconsules  ex  plebiscito  con- 
tinued to  be  chosen  up  to  the  year  197  B.C.  Then,  by  the  addi- 
tion of  two  praetors,  a  number  of  officials  was  created  sufficient 
to  govern  the  various  parts  of  Rome's  growing  empire.4  These 
praetors  governed  either  with  praetorian  or  with  proconsular 
power,  and  in  times  of  crisis  were  replaced  by  men  of  procon- 
sular rank.  There  is  one  instance  of  a  quaestor  being  chosen  to 
govern  Hither  Spain,5  and  other  exceptional  appointments  were 
made  during  the  last  years  of  the  Republic,  but  in  general  it  may 
be  said  that  the  chief  executives  of  the  Roman  Republican  gov- 
ernment in  Spain  were  consuls  or  proconsuls,  praetors  or  pro- 
praetors. The  usual  number  of  subordinate  officials  accom- 
panied their  chiefs;  one  quaestor  for  each  province,  one  legatus 
for  each  praetor,  three  legati  for  each  consul. 

The  term  of  office  was  regularly  one  year,  but  exceptions  to 


40  App.  B.  C.  3,  4;  4,  84,  94.    Dio  45,  10;  48,  17.     Cic.  ep.  ad  Att.  16,  14. 
i  The  theory  of  Mommsen,  and  especially  of  Frank. 
2  Livy  22,  22.    Poly.  3,  97,  2-4.    App.  Iber.  15. 

a  Livy  26,  18-20.     Poly.  10,  2.     App.  Iber.  18.     Flor.  2,  6,  37.     Eutrop. 
3,  15.     Zonar.  9,  7. 

i  Livy  32,  27.    Marquardt,  Staatsverwaltung ,  I,  517. 
s  Gn.  Calpurnius  Piso,  in  65  B.C. 


92  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [y°l.  4 

this  rule  were  common  both  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  close  of 
the  Republican  period.0  Officers  and  troops  at  first  traveled  to 
I  Snain  by  sea  by  way  of  Genua  and  Massilia,7  but  with  the  im- 
I  provement  of  roads  and  the  pacification  of  the  tribes  of  southern 
Gaul,  the  land  route  came  to  be  more  commonly  used.  It  was 
not  until  the  end  of  the  Republican  period,  however,  that  an  army 
traveled  the  entire  distance  by  land.8 

The  civil  administration  of  Spain  before  the  time  of  Augustus 
has  not  been  the  subject  of  any  connected  account.  Some  details 
of  Republican  rule  have  been  given  a  place  in  the  pages  of  the 
historians  of  antiquity;  others  may  be  assumed  from  the  fact 
that  they  were  common  to  all  the  provinces.  But  it  should  be 
remembered  that  Spain  was  the  governmental  experiment  sta- 
tion of  the  Romans.1'  Therefore  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  many  early  schemes  were  given  a  trial  in  Spain,  failed, 
and  were  soon  forgotten.  Of  the  plans  which  succeeded,  there 
remains  enough  to  construct  the  following  account. 

Many  details  of  administration  were  conducted  by  the  mili- 
tary officials.  In  fact,  the  division  between  civil  and  military 
functions  was  not  completely  carried  out  until  the  time  of  Dio- 
cletian. But  the  manifold  character  of  the  duties  of  a  provincial 
governor  was  much  more  apparent  at  the  beginning  of  a  conquest 
^  than  after  pacification  had  been  secured.  The  administrative 
duties  of  a  conquering  official  may  be  divided  roughly  into  the 
collection  of  tribute,  taxes,  and  all  other  forms  of  compensation 
which  the  fortunes  of  war  brought  to  the  victors ;  the  regulation 
of  industries,  commerce  and  trade ;  the  definition  of  boundaries ; 
the  introduction  and  supervision  of  Roman  law  courts;  the  de- 
termination of  the  political  status  of  the  subject  communities; 
and  the  recommendation  of  individuals  or  groups  for  admission 


e  P.  Cornelius  Scipio,  218-212.  P.  Cornelius  P.  f.  Scipio,  210-206.  L. 
Cornelius  Lentulus,  L.  Manlius  Acidanus,  205-201.  T.  Didius,  98-94.  P. 
Licinius  Crassus,  97-94.  Q.  Caecilius  Metellus  Pius,  79-72.  Gn.  Pom- 
peius  Magnus,  77-72,  54-49. 

7  App.  Iber.  26,  27,  37,  42. 

s  Cic.  Vat.  5,  12.  Sueton.  Caesar  56.  App.  B.  C.  2,  103.  Dio  43,  32. 
Oros.  6,  16. 

9  Sicily  offered  few  problems.  It  was  smaller,  well  organized,  a  text 
book  of  hellenistic  administration. 


1916]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       93 

to  the  citizen  body  of  Rome.  All  of  these  duties  were  performed 
under  the  direction  of  the  Senate,  or  subject  to  its  approval.  In 
many  cases  the  first  step  in  organization  was  taken  by  the  official 
to  whom  a  province  had  been  assigned,  assisted  by  a  commission 
of  ten  senators.  The  work  of  these  men  was  incorporated  in  a 
lex  provinciae.")  Of  the  commission  chosen  for  Spain  and  its  work, 
we  know  only  the  date  of  its  appointment,  133  B.C.10  That  it  was 
not  appointed  until  after  a  century  of  conflict  indicates  the  diffi- 
culty which  the  Romans  experienced  in  subjugating  the  Spanish 
tribes.  However,  the  provincial  governors  did  not  wait  for  the 
guidance  of  a  lex  provinciae.  The  collection  of  revenue  was  too 
important  a  task  to  admit  of  delay. 

There  are  records  of  large  amounts  of  booty  obtained  in 
Spain,  beginning  with  the  year  2l4  B.C.11  Although  the  totals  by 
no  means  equalled  those  returned  from  the  East,  the  Romans 
might  reasonably  hope  that  the  province,  when  subdued,  would 
prove  a  profitable  investment.  Money  and  corn  were  usually 
sent  out  to  the  Roman  armies  but  this  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
local  mints  were  not  used  by  the  Romans,  also  to  the  lack  of  sur- 
plus grain  in  a  land  whose  wealth  lay  in  cattle,  orchards  and 
minerals.12  The  booty  consisted  of  bullion  or  works  of  art,13  as 
did  the  compulsory  contributions  which  were  often  levied.14 
Some  regular  tribute  was  evidently  collected  early  in  the  time  of 
Roman  occupation,  for  Livy  records  that  in  205  B.C.  the  com- 
munities of  Spain  were  ordered  to  pay  double  taxes  and  furnish 
clothing  for  the  army.15  The  amount  of  the  regular  tax  was 
light,  for  the  Romans,  in  order  to  retain  the  friendship  of  the 
tribes,  levied  only  the  twentieth  required  by  their  Barcid  pre- 
decessors.16 


io  App.  Iber.  99. 

ii  Livy  25,  39;  cf.  26,  47;  28,  38;  31,  20;  32,  7;  33,  27;  34,  46;  39,  42; 
40,  43;  41,  7;  41,  28;  45,  4. 

12  182  B.C.,  the  first  exception  rioted  (Livy  40,  35). 

13  Cf.  references  cited  in  note  11. 

14  Livy  21,  61;  22,  20;  40,  47.     Voluntary  contribution,  Livy  40,  44. 
is  Livy  29,  3;  cf.  30,  3.' 

is  One  may  agree  with  the  statement  of  Frank   (op.  cit.,  129),  that 
"this  new  province  cost  the  state  more  than  it  yielded,"  if  the  reckon- 


94  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     tVoL-  4 

Commercial  life  had  been  interrupted  by  the  Roman  conquest. 
The  series  of  wars  during  the  latter  half  of  the  third  century 
had  not  only  robbed  Spain  of  her  portable  wealth,  and  put  an  end 
to  steady  industrial  production  of  any  sort,  but  it  had  also 
brought  with  it  a  new  master  and  new  commercial  relationships. 
Of  the  first  steps  in  the  necessary  readjustment  we  know  little. 
In  197  B.C.  Cato  reopened  the  silver  and  iron  mines.17  The  other 
industries  apparently  struggled  along  without  much  assistance. 
As  a  rule  the  extant  accounts  of  contemporaries  are  filled  with 
military  deeds  and  little  space  is  given  to  consideration  of  the 
commercial  and  industrial  development  of  Spain.  Individual 
merchants  followed  the  Roman  standards,18  but  how  they  were 
protected,  what  restrictions  were  placed  upon  the  native  dealers, 
or  what  encouragement  was  given  them  we  do  not  know.  An 
excellent  statement  of  the  administrative  problems  as  they  ap- 
peared to  the  Romans  is  given  by  Bouchier  :19 

The  task  which  lay  before  the  Republic  was  to  complete  the  conquest 
of  the  peninsula :  in  the  south  to  add  the  idea  of  a  state  to  that  of  a  number 
of  isolated  towns  by  providing  common  magistrates,  an  official  religion, 
priesthood,  language,  and  code  of  laws;  in  the  center  to  develop  the 
natural  resources  of  a  not  very  productive  district ;  in  the  north  to  bring 
down  the  fierce  highland  clans  to  the  plains,  to  overawe  them  with  military 
colonies,  and  encourage  them  to  pursue  the  peaceful  occupations  of  mining 
and  agriculture,  or  else  to  take  service  as  legionaries  or  auxiliaries. 

In  the  year  206-205,  by  appointing  two  officers  of  procon- 
sular rank20  to  succeed  the  Younger  Scipio,  Rome  took  the  first 
step  in  the  process  of  division  which  ultimately  made  of  the 
Iberian  peninsula  six  provinces.  It  was  not  until  197  B.C.,  how- 
ever, that  the  Two  Spains  were  definitely  established  as  separate 
military  districts,  with  a  regularly  elected  praetor  in  charge  of 


ing  be  in  money.  But  the  Romans  used  Spain  as  a  recruiting  ground  for 
auxiliary  and  legionary  troops  (Livy  27,  38.  209  B.C.).  For  the  imperial 
period  see  Arnold,  Studies  of  Roman  Imperialism,  143. 

it  Livy  24,  31. 

3  8  Livy  28,  22. 

19  E.  S.  Bouchier,  Spam  under  the  Roman  Empire,  16. 

20  Livy  28,  38.    App.  Iber.  38.     Cf.  Mommsen,  Staatsrecht,  II,  1,  p.  633, 
note  3. 


1916J   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       95 

each.21  Almost  half  a  century  elapsed  before  the  boundaries 
were  accurately  determined.22  Hither  and  Farther  Spain  re- 
mained the  two  divisions  until  49  B.C.  At  that  time  Pompey,  to 
whom  the  Two  Spains  had  been  entrusted,  governed  them 
through  three  legati,  each  with  a  district  of  his  own.  This  was 
the  first  attempt  at  a  tripartite  division  of  the  peninsula.23 

During  the  wars  which  followed,  civil  administration  was  de- 
moralized, if  not  altogether  destroyed.  At  any  rate,  no  hint  of 
a  reorganization  of  the  provinces  has  come  to  us  from  the  records 
of  49-27  b.c.  But  the  mass  of  evidence  indicating  a  tripartite 
division  between  27  b.c.  and  14  a.d.  is  conclusive.  Mommsen's 
earlier  view24  that  the  division  did  not  take  place  before  the 
principate  of  Tiberius,  was  withdrawn,25  and  many  efforts  have 
been  made  to  establish  a  more  definite  dating.  The  work  of  Det- 
lefsen  has  been  mentioned.26  Of  the  Spanish  writers,  Lafuente 
and  Altamira  offer  little  assistance.27  Partsch,  Ursin,  Mispoulet 
and  Gardthausen  have  offered  solutions  of  the  problem.28  The 
final  word  has  not  been  written,  nor  is  it  my  intention  to  discuss 
at  length  the  arguments  brought  forward  in  support  of  different 
dates.  But  reference  should  be  made  to  two  recent  discussions, 
one  by  Braun,29  the  other  by  Wallrafen.30    The  former  concludes 


21  Livy  32,  27-28.  Note  the  exceptional  union  of  the  two  provinces 
under  one  praetor  during  the  second  Macedonian  war,  167  B.C.  (Livy 
44,  17). 

*2App.  Iber.  49;  cf.  39.     Livy  33,  25. 

23  Caesar  B.  C.  I,  38,  1.  Marquardt,  Staatsverwaltung,  I,  102.  A  mili- 
tary division  and  not  permanent.  For  another  view  see  Detlefsen,  in 
Comm.  phil.  in  honorem  Mommseni,  p.  28. 

24  Res  Gestae  Bivi  Augusti,  ed.  Mommsen,  5,  35  (ch.  28). 

25  Res  Gestae  .  .  .  ,  iterum  ed.,  p.  222. 

26  See  note  23. 

2"  Lafuente  (I,  48,  col.  2)  follows  Dio  53,  12,  and  App.  Iber.  102:  "Dio 
al  sen  ado  la  Betica,  y  se  asigno  a  se  el  resto  de  la  Peninsula,  del  cual 
hizo  despues  una  doble  provincia  con  los  nombres  de  Lusitania  y  Tarra- 
conense  .  .  ."  Altamira  (I,  114):  "Augusto  (o  quiza  su  sucesor 
Tiberio)  formo  con  parte  de  la  Ulterior  otra  provincia  llamada  Lusi- 
tania ..." 

28  Partsch,  Die  Darstellung  Europas  in  den  geographischen  WerTcen  des 
Agrippa  (Breslau,  1875);  Ursin,  Be  Lusitania  provincia  (Helsingfors, 
1884).    Both  quoted  by  Wallrafen,  see  note  30. 

29  Braun,  Bie  EntwicMung  der  spanischen  Frovinzialgrenzen. 

30  Wallrafen,  Die  Einrichtung  und  Jcommunale  EntivicJclung  der  romischen 
Provinz  Lusitanien. 


96  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

there  was  a  division  into  three  provinces  made  by  Agrippa  in  27 
B.C.,  at  which  time  Baetica  was  made  a  senatorial  province ;  that 
between  7  and  2  B.C.  Augustus  revised  the  boundaries  of  the  first 
division,  giving  to  Baetica,  Lusitania  and  Hispania  Citerior  the 
territories  which  they  held  up  to  the  time  of  Diocletian.  On 
the  other  hand,  Wallrafen  believes  that  the  division  of  Agrippa 
was  not  an  administrative  one,  but  simply  the  withdrawal  of 
Lusitania  from  Hispania  Ulterior  and  of  Asturia  and  Callaecia 
from  Hispania  Citerior  to  form  a  military  district.  He  believes 
that  the  temporary  division  was  made  permanent,  that  is,  trans- 
ferred from  a  military  to  a  civil  basis,  by  the  definite  organiza- 
tion of  the  three  provinces  about  15  B.C.,  and  that  at  that  date 
Baetica  became  a  senatorial  province. 

The  shortest  and  clearest  presentation  of  the  arguments  in 
favor  of  a  dating  after  15  B.C.  is  given  by  Kornemann,31  who 
bases  his  selection  of  15  B.C.  as  a  terminus  post  quern  on  (1)  the 
foundation  of  the  colony  Augusta  Emerita  in  25  B.C.,  (2)  the 
praetorian  rank  of  P.  Carisius,  governor  of  Citerior  25-22  B.C., 
(3)  the  probable  date,  19  B.C.,  of  Agrippa 's  measurements  of 
Lusitania  cum  Asturia  et  Callaecia,  (4)  the  foundation  of  other 
Augustan  colonies  "utraque  Hispania"  in  15  B.C.  On  the  other 
hand,  6  b.c.  is  taken  as  the  terminus  ante  quern  on  the  grounds 
(1)  that  Pliny  made  use  of  statistics  compiled  by  Augustus,  i.e., 
before  14  a.d.  ;  (2)  that  these  statistics  were  compiled  before  the 
establishment  of  the  Lancienses  Oppidani  as  a  stipendiary  com- 
munity, i.e.,  before  6  a.d.;  (3)  that  the  tripartite  division  in- 
cluded a  change  in  the  eastern  boundary  of  Baetica,  a  change 
made  before  2  B.C. ;  (4)  that  Callaecia,  made  an  administrative 
unit  for  the  first  time  in  the  tripartite  division,  addressed  C. 
Caesar  in  an  inscription  which  dates  from  before  6  B.C. 

Between  15  b.c.  and  6  B.C.,  Kornemann  points  out  three  pos- 
sible dates  for  the  division,  14,  10,  and  8  B.C.  The  choice  of  one 
of  these  dates  must  be  an  arbitrary  one  without  positive  proof. 
In  rejecting  Kornemann 's  choice  of  8  B.C.,  and  accepting  Wall- 
rafen's  date,  15-14  b.c,  I  am  governed  by  a  fairly  strong  argu- 


3i  Kornemann,  Die  Entstehung  der  Provinz  Lusitanien. 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       97 

ment  from  probability.  There  was  no  reason  why  the  division 
should  be  postponed  after  the  final  subjugation  of  the  Astnres 
and  Cantabri.  Then,  if  ever,  was  the  time  to  transfer  Baetica 
from  imperial  to  senatorial  control.  The  military  importance  of 
Lusitania  as  a  base  of  attack  upon  the  northern  tribes  ceased 
with  their  conquest,  and  the  troops  could  be  transferred  without 
much  fear  to  the  Hither  Province.  The  evidence  which  appears 
to  favor  a  later  date  can  be  explained  independently  of  such  a 
supposition.  An  inscription  of  Baetica32  came  at  a  time  of  gen- 
eral rejoicing  and  need  not  have  represented  any  local  change 
at  that  time.  In  like  manner  the  honors  paid  to  C.  and  Lucius 
Caesar33  by  the  provincials  may  be  dated  at  8  b.c.  without  affect- 
ing the  date  of  the  tripartite  division.  The  strongest  argument 
in  favor  of  the  later  date  is  that  the  changes  were  not  incor- 
porated in  the  Agrippa-Karte,  and  that  Augustus  would  not 
make  such  changes  before  the  death  of  Agrippa  through  fear  of 
injuring  the  pride  of  his  lieutenant.  One  may  question  the  as- 
sumption that  exact  provincial  divisions  were  given  in  the  Karte, 
and  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Augustus  would  postpone  an  ad- 
ministrative step  for  eight  years  with  the  sole  motive  of  pre- 
serving intact  the  pride  of  Agrippa.34 


III.  MUNICIPAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  SPAIN,  218-27  B.C. 

Although  Augustus  was  professedly  and  at  heart  an  Occi- 
dentalist  he  utilized  all  traces  of  Hellenistic  organization  in  the 
administration  of  the  great  western  territories  of  Rome.  Greek 
civilization  had  been  spread  over  the  Mediterranean  lands  in  and 
by  city-states,  and  even  the  vast  ideas  of  world-empire  and  uni- 


32  Imp.  Caesari  Augusto  p(atri)  p(atriae),  Hispania  Ulterior  Baetica,. 
quod  beneficio  eius  et  perpetua  cura  provincia  pacata  est  .  .  .  (Dessau, 
I,  103  =  GIL,  VI,  31267).  Mispoulet  would  date  the  division  of  Hispania, 
Ulterior  from  this  inscription,  on  or  after  2  B.C.  (Eevue  de  Philologie, 
XXX,  302). 

33  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  228,  notes  1,  2. 

34  Agrippa 's  pride  did  not  always  hinder  Augustus.  See  Bury,  Students '' 
Roman  Empire,  50.  For  another  refutation  of  this  argument  see  Wall- 
rafen,  56. 


98 


University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 


versal  citizenship  had  not  driven  out  of  use  the  time-tried  and 
successful  method  of  incorporating  new  communities  into  a  com- 
mon Kulturgebiet  by  the  establishment  of  urban  centers  as  ever- 
present  reminders  of  the  power  and  glory  of  the  conquer er.  In 
the  three  Gauls  little  pioneering  work  had  been  done,1  but  in 
Spain  and  particularly  in  Baetica  the  earlier  foundations  of 
Phoenician  and  Carthaginian  settlements  afforded  the  Romans  a 
basis  for  the  approved  method  of  administration.  The  per- 
sistence and  power  of  this  foreign  influence  had  had  its  effect  on 
native  organization.  The  old  tribal  units  were  breaking  down, 
and  many  of  the  village  communities  exercised  the  sovereign 
rights  of  a- Greek  polis. 

Of  the  175  towns  in  Baetica  at  the  time  of  Augustus,  Abdera, 
Asido,  Baelo,  Ebusus,  Gades,  Lascuta,  Malaca,  Oba,  Sexi,  Tur- 
riregina,  Vesci,  and  Iptuci  were  foreign  settlements.  Some  of 
them  dated  back  to  the  days  of  Phoenician  colonization.  They 
were  originally  trading  stations,  and  as  such  had  exerted  a 
marked  influence  over  the  native  tribes  of  the  adjacent  interior. 
It  was  not  until  the  advent  of  the  Barcids,  however,  in  226  B.C. 
that  any  attempt  at  thorough  exploitation  was  made.  During 
their  rule  the  people  of  the  southern  part  of  the  peninsula  learned 
the  cost  of  civilization.  The  Turduli,  Turdetani  and  Baeturi 
were  tamed,  were  trained  to  pay  tribute  in  men  and  money,  and 
wrere  taught  to  live  in  cities,  to  prefer  the  restraints  of  peace  to 
the  freedom  of  tribal  war. 

After  this  preliminary  education,  the  people  of  Baetica  proved 
to  be  docile  pupils  of  the  Romans.  By  133  B.C.  this  section  of  the 
Farther  Province  was  essentially  romanized.2  The  coins  of  many 
of  the  towns  indicate  a  continuous  municipal  life  from  the  time 
of  the  Carthaginian  conquest.3  The  political  readjustment  was 
not  difficult.4  The  commercial  readjustment,  however,  was  more 
arduous.     It  was  most  keenly  felt,  no  doubt,  by  the  traders  of 


i  O.    Hirschfeld,    Klio,    VIII    (1908),    464-476.      Keprinted    in    Kleine 
fichriften,  No.  VI. 
2Strabo  3,  2,  15. 

sZobel  de  Zangroniz,  IT,  3-12,  200-205. 
4  Livy  32,  2,     Cic.  pro  BaJb.  15,  34.    Mommsen,  History  of  Rome,  III,  9. 


1916]   yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus       99 

Gades  and  the  other  Carthaginian  settlements,  men  whose  knowl- 
edge and  acquaintanceship  were  confined  to  a  business  world  of 
which  Rome  had  not  been  a  part.  But  the  subjugation  of  the 
neighboring  restless  tribes  brought  peace  to  the  country  and  an 
opportunity  for  economic  recovery.5 

Throughout  the  period  218-133  B.C.  Roman  town  foundations 
in  the  Two  Spains  were  military  in  their  character.  The  terri- 
tory later  known  as  Baetica  received  three  foundations  of  this 
kind.  In  206  B.C.  Italica  was  chosen  by  the  younger  Scipio  as  a 
home  for  some  of  his  veterans.  It  was  given  the  title  of  munici- 
pium,  retaining  that  status  in  the  time  of  Hadrian.6  The  only 
colony  of  this  period  in  Baetica  was  Carteia,  founded  about  170 
B.C.  The  Senate  granted  its  citizens  the  Latin  right  and  settled 
here  the  sons  of  Roman  soldiers  by  Spanish  mothers.7.  Corduba, 
although  it  received  some  Roman  settlers  about  150  B.C.,  was  not 
officially  incorporated  until  a  much  later  date.8 

With  the  fall  of  Numantia  in  133  B.C.,  the  military  motives  for 
municipal  establishments  lost  much  of  their  force.  Rome's 
energies,  moreover,  were  absorbed  by  local  reforms  and  civil 
wars.  It  was  not  until  the  revolt  of  Sertorius  that  the  Iberian 
peninsula  once  more  attracted  attention.  By  that  time  ad- 
ministrative needs  or  political  expediency  dictated  the  numbers 
and  location  of  new  provincial  municipalities.  In  Baetica, 
Caesarian  foundations  are  the  first  evidences  of  this  new  policy. 
The  colonies  Hasta  Regia,  Hispalis,  Itucci,  Ucubi  and  Urso  were 
established  by  Caesar,  or  by  the  triumvirs  in  accordance  with  the 
memoranda  left  by  him.  Twelve  municipia,  bearing  the  cog- 
nomen Iulia,  xwere  also  established  by  Caesar.9 

The  centralizing  forces  of  Phoenician,   Greek  and   Cartha- 


6  Parvan,  Die  NationaUtat  der  Kaufleute.     Fertig,  Land  und  Leute. 
sSueton.  Augustus  94.     Gellius  16,  13,  4.     CIL,  II,  1135.     Heiss,  De- 
scription generate  des  monnaies  .  .  .  ,  p.  380. 

7  Livy  28,  30;  43,  3. 

s  CIL,  II,  p.  306.    Perhaps  Pompeian. 

o  Artigi  quod  Iulienses,  Asido  quae  Caesarina,  Concordia  Iulia,  Con- 
stantia  Iulia,  Contributa  Iulia,  Fama  Iulia,  Gades  (see  below,  p.  116),  Iliturgi 
•quod  Forum  Iulium,  Osset  quod  Iulia  Constantia,  Eestituta  Iulia,  Sexi 
Firmum  cognomine  Iulium,  Urgia  cognomina  Castrum  Iulium. 


100  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

ginian  civilization  did  not  affect  to  an  appreciable  extent  the 
political  organization  of  west  central  Spain.  There  are  legends 
of  Greek  settlements  on  the  Atlantic  coast  which  may  reflect  an 
actual  colonization  by  the  pathfinders  of  the  Massiliot  or  Pho- 
caean  merchants.10  The  Barcids,  too,  had  made  some  impression 
upon  the  farther  bank  of  the  Anas  river.11  But  the  people  of 
Lusitania  lived  in  small  groups,  a  sort  of  "twilight  zone''  be- 
tween pure  tribal  units  and  true  city-states.  Their  cities  were 
citadels  and  little  else,12  with  the  possible  exception  of  coast 
towns  like  Olisipo  and  Salacia,  or  of  the  punicized  settlements 
such  as  Balsa  and  Myrtilis.  Far  in  the  north  the  tribal  grouping 
was  larger  and  firmer.  Hermandica,  or  Elmantike,  later  Sala- 
manca, was  the  center  of  the  Vaccaei,  a  large  and  important 
tribe. 

The  absence  of  any  real  unity  made  conquest  by  the  Romans 
as  difficult  as  it  was  certain.  Each  small  group  had  to  be  con- 
quered in  turn,  and  then  watched  carefully  lest  it  should  sud- 
denly vanish,  only  to  reappear  in  the  ranks  of  the  enemy.13  A 
policy  of  extermination  was  the  natural  result.  Strongholds 
were  destroyed  and  the  inhabitants  killed  or  sold  into  slavery. 
This  destructive  work  went  on  from  the  first  meeting  of  Lusi- 
tanians  and  Romans  in  193  b.c.14  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Ser- 
torian  War.  Fighting  did  not  cease  until  60  b.c.,15  but  about 
the  year  80,  Q.  Caecilius  Metellus  founded  in  the  south  a  mili- 
tary station  which  took  its  name  from  the  founder.  Metellinum16 
was  a  colony  in  the  time  of  Augustus.  Whether  it  received  the 
ius  coloniae  at  the  time  of  its  foundation  cannot  be  determined, 
but  it  represented  the  first  attempt  to  introduce  Roman  munici- 
pal life  into  this  part  of  the  peninsula.  The  second  town  to  be 
raised  above  the  stipendiary  rank  was  Salacia.17     Its  cognomen 


10  Bouchier,  Spain  wider  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  12. 

ii  Wallrafen,  Einrichtung,  p.  35. 

12  Ibid.,  pp.  35-36. 

is  Livy  38,  35.     App.  Iber.  44-45. 

14  Livy,  35,  7. 

is  Livy  ep.  103. 

i«  Pliny  4,  117. 

17  Wallrafen,  Einrichtung,  p.  38,  note  4.    CIL,  II,  p.  802. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     101 

Imperatoria  is  neither  Augustan  nor  Caesarian ;  hence  it  is  con- 
jectured that  Sextus  Pompey  conferred  upon  the  town  its  second 
name,  and  that  at  the  same  time  he  granted  to  its  citizens  the 
Latin  right.  It  was  to  Caesar,  the  successor  of  Alexander  in  city 
founding,18  that  Lusitania  was  indebted  for  the  greatest  number 
of  municipal  additions  at  the  hands  of  a  single  individual.  Three 
colonies,  Pax  Iulia,  Norba,  and  Scallabis,  were  established  by 
him,  and  his  liberal  hand  gave  to  the  province  its  single  munici- 
pality with  full  Roman  rights,  Olisipo.  He  also  advanced 
Myrtilis  and  Ebora  to  the  status  held  by  Salacia. 

In  the  municipalization  of  the  Hither  Province,  the  Eomans 
had  a  foundation  of  Greek  and  Carthaginian  coast  towns  upon 
which  to  build.  The  Greeks  had  entered  this  district  as  market 
seekers,  and  made  no  attempt  to  secure  more  than  "quarters" 
for  trading  purposes.  The  relationship  between  the  newcomers 
and  the  natives  was  apparently  one  of  latent  hostility,  if  the  ac- 
counts19 of  Emporiae,  the  first  Greek  trading  post,  be  true.  The 
mutual  suspicion  which  prevailed  there  was  perhaps  exceptional, 
for  in  the  other  Greek  towns  the  immigrant  element  was  so  small 
that  it  was  soon  merged  into  the  larger  native  population.20  On 
the  whole,  it  is  difficult  to  attribute  to  the  Greeks  a  large  amount 
of  direct  influence  upon  the  political  development  of  the  Iberian 
tribes.  The  centralization  of  the  coast  cantons  into  urban  com- 
munities was  due  rather  to  the  needs  of  trade,  and  to  the  wealth 
which  came  from  an  increasing  commerce.  Rhodae,  Emporiae, 
Chersonesus  and  Alonae  had  Greek  settlers,  but  the  assimilation 
was  so  thorough  that  only  the  first  two  have  preserved  a  survival 
of  Hellenic  influence  in  the  use  of  Greek  on  their  coins.  By  the 
time  of  the  Barcid  conquest  the  city-dwelling  habit  had  spread 
along  the  coast  and  up  the  larger  river  valleys.  The  most  im- 
portant of  the  river  towns  was  Saguntum,  an  ally  of  the  Romans 
about  225  B.C. 


is  Pompey  also  has  a  claim  to  this  title,  but  his  foundations  failed  to 
become  the  nuclei  of  a  new  civilization  as  did  Caesar's. 
"  Strabo  3,  4,  8.    Poly.  2,  6,  19.     Pauly-Wissowa,  V,  2527. 
2o  Bouchier,  pp.  10-11. 


102  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.4 

Carthaginian  activity  in  eastern  Spain  was  neither  intensive 
nor  permanent.  The  only  foundations21  were  some  naval  stations 
in  the  Balearic  islands  and  Carthago  Nova,  for  a  brief  period 
the  military  center  of  a  new  empire.  From  it  the  commands  of 
the  Barcids  carried  weight  beyond  the  Ebro  and  the  Pyrenees  to 
Massilia,22  but  in  206  B.C.  the  city  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Romans, 
and  its  former  owners  were  driven  from  the  peninsula. 

Roman  leaders,  then,  had  to  weld  into  a  political  unity  a  few 
Greek  coast  settlements,  one  Carthaginian  town,  a  narrow  hinter- 
land of  hellenized  natives,  and  a  vast  stretch  of  unknown  terri- 
tory beyond.  Conquest  was  the  first  step,  and  the  wars  of  the 
period  from  218-133  B.C.  were  so  severe  and  so  continuous  that 
Roman  foundations  during  that  time  were  primarily  military. 
Tarraco,  the  first  Roman  foundation  in  all  Spain,  was  the  work 
of  the  Scipios.23  TTwas  used  from  the  first  as  the  chief  military 
base  of  the  province.  Graccuris,  a  reorganization  of  the  original 
Ilurcis  in  179  B.C.,  and  Valentia,  a  settlement  of  veterans  in  138 
B.C.,  are  the  only  direct  evidences  of  municipal  creation  on  the 
part  of  the  Romans  during  the  conquest  period.  Many  native 
towns  are  mentioned  by  Livy,  and  numismatic  finds  attest  their 
wealth  and  number,  but  the  general  policy  here,  as  in  Lusitania, 
was  to  scatter  the  forces  of  the  enemy,  not  to  encourage  the  cen- 
tralization which  would  come  from  the  building  of  towns.24 

After  the  destruction  of  Numantia,  municipal  life  was  looked 
upon  with  more  favor  by  the  Romans.  Few  of  the  later  founda- 
tions were  more  than  organized  native  towns,  a  proof  of  the  ad- 
vanced character  of  these  Iberian  municipalities.  Unfortunately 
the  details  of  this  period  are  lacking.  The  work  of  Sertorius 
cannot  be  ascertained  but  we  know  that  some  of  his  troops  were 
settled  in  Spain  by  Pompey.25     The  assignment  of  town  founda- 


2i  Schulten,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  VI IT,  2,  2033-2034. 

22  Bouchier,  pp.  11-12. 

23  Scipionum  opus  (Pliny  3,  21). 

24  Cato  sought  to  destroy  the  towns  (Livy  34,  8-21).     Cf.  the  work  of 
Gracchus  (App.  Iber.  44). 

25  A  conclusion  based  upon  the  number  of  Sertorii  in  Spain.     Cf.  CIL 
II,  Index  Nominum. 


iy16]   yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     103 

tions  to  the  period  133-49  B.C.  can  be  made  only  by  a  doubtful 
process  of  elimination.  Given  the  lists  of  colonies  and  Roman 
municipalities  of  Pliny,  we  may  segregate  the  foundations  of 
Augustus,  which  are  identified  by  their  cognomen  Augusta.  The 
foundations  of  Caesar  may  be  identified  by  the  cognomen  Iulia. 
There  remain  eight  mtimicipia  civium  Romanorum  which  may 
have  attained  their  status  before  Caesar's  time.  Baetulo, 
Blandae  and  Iluro  were  situated  on  the  coast  north  of  Tarraco ; 
Ilerda,  not  far  from  Tarraco,  and  Osca  had  played  an  important 
part  in  the  civil  wars ;  Biscargis  and  Turiasso  were  on  the  Ebro ; 
while  Bilbilis  was  but  an  outpost  of  this  romanized  Ebro  district. 

After  his  victories  over  the  Pompeian  commanders  in  Spain, 
Caesar  granted  the  ius  coloniae  to  Acci,  Carthago  Nova  and 
Celsa.  He  raised  to  the  status  of  municipia  civium  Romanorum 
Calagurris  and  Dertosa.  Castulo,  Iulia  Libica  and  the  Tear- 
iulienses  were  granted  the  Latin  right  by  him ;  and  the  stipen- 
diaria  Iuliobriga  and  Segisama  Iulia  were  evidently  organized  as 
towns  by  his  orders. 

From  the  foregoing  account  one  can  see  that  the  Roman  towns 
founded  in  Spain  between  218  B.C.  and  133  B.C.  were  conquest 
communities,  groups  of  veterans  settled  in  the  hellenized  or 
punicized  districts  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  peace.  Metel- 
linum,  the  only  foundation  of  the  next  half  century,  was  a  be- 
lated representative  of  this  type.  During  this  period  the  privi- 
leges of  Roman  citizenship  were  too  jealously  guarded  to  permit 
their  extension  to  native  communities  in  the  provinces. 

A  decided  departure  from  this  policy  of  exclusion  is  shown  in 
the  work  of  Sertorius,  Pompey  and  Caesar.  They  may  have  been 
moved  to  a  liberal  extension  of  the  rights  of  Roman  citizenship 
by  a  selfish  desire  to  obtain  men,  money  and  good-will  in  return 
for  favors  granted,  or  by  a  genuine  interest  in  the  welfare  of  at 
least  this  portion  of  the  empire.  These  motives  were  not  con- 
tradictory, and  both  were  probably  instrumental  in  bringing 
about  the  official  romanization  of  Spain. 

There  were  four  factors  which  made  this  new  policy  prac- 
ticable and  desirable.     In  the  first  place  the  districts  were  pre- 


104  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

pared  for  local  autonomy.  Then,  too,  it  was  to  the  best  interest 
of  the  party  leaders  to  obtain  the  fidelity  of  the  provincials  by 
liberal  grants  of  citizenship.  Again,  the  independent  powers 
(assumed  or  conferred)  of  these  leaders  freed  them  from  the  re- 
straints of  the  conservative  authorities  in  Rome.  Finally,  the 
Leges  Iulia  and  Plautia  Papiria  had  established  a  precedent 
which  Sertorius  and  his  successors  were  quick  to  follow.20 

IV.  THE  PROVINCIAL  REORGANIZATION  OF  SPAIN  UNDER 
AUGUSTUS 

The  history  of  Roman  Spain  under  the  beneficent  rule  of 
Augustus  and  his  successors  in  the  principate  is  more  intelligible 
than  that  of  any  period  previous  thereto.  This  is  true  in  the 
first  place  because  romanization  was  carried  on  by  intelligent 
men  following  a  definite  plan,  and  in  the  second  place  because  it 
was  not  confined  to  a  portion  of  the  peninsula  but  included  the 
whole  of  it.  Unity  and  continuity  were,  therefore,  the  two  char- 
acteristics of  Roman  rule  under  the  early  Empire.  Spain  had 
had  a  century  of  vain  resistance  to  Roman  arms,  a  second  century 
of  administrative  experiments  and  civil  wars ;  under  the  Empire 
it  was  to  have  a  season  of  peace  and  prosperity.  During  this 
time  the  Spanish  people  demonstrated  their  ability  along  many 
different  lines.  They  furnished  Rome  material  wealth  from 
fields  and  mines,1  gave  soldiers,  scholars,  ptfets,  priests  and  two  of 
her  most  famous  emperors.2     The  foundation  upon  which  this 

26  Roman  municipalities  (eoloniae  and  municipia)  in  Spain  before 
Augustus: 

Lusitania  Baetica       Hispairia  Citem'or 

Founded  by  Caesar  6  17        .  8.* 

Other  foundations  2  2  11*  " 

*  Cf.  p.  102  f. 

This  tabulation,  based  on  incomplete  evidence,  cannot  claim  mathe- 
matical accuracy.  It  is  correct,  at  least,  in  .showing  that  Caesar's 
foundations  outnumbered  those  of  all  his  predecessors,  and  in  demon- 
strating that  the  greater  portion  of  Caesarian  towns  were  in  the  south- 
western quarter  of  the  peninsula. 

iMispoulet,  Le  regime  des  mines;  Feliciani,  L'Espagne;  Fertig,  Land 
und  Leute. 

2  Trajan  and  Hadrian.  For  lists  of  famous  men  see  Diercks,  Geschichte 
Spaniens;  Jung,  Bomanische  Landschaften  ;  Bouchier,  Spain  under  the  Soman 
Empire;  Arnold,  jBtudies. 


19:1 6]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     105 

greatness  rested  was  the  reorganization  by  Augustus  and  the 
efficient  administration  which  he  introduced  into  the  peninsula. 

Before  Spain  could  be  treated  as  a  unit  for  administrative 
purposes,  there  remained  one  final  step  of  pacification  in  the  sub- 
jugation of  the  hardy  mountaineers  of  the  northwest.3  The  cam- 
paign, although  pressed  with  the  utmost  vigor  by  the  most  skill- 
ful of  Rome's  generals,  covered  a  period  of  twelve  years  (28-16 
B.C.) .  Even  then  success  came  as  a  result  of  extermination  rather 
than  through  pacification.  The  establishment  of  three  legions  in 
the  lowlands  nearby  served,  however,  to  keep  the  survivors  quiet, 
and  allowed  the  more  submissive  tribes  to  cultivate  their  fields  in 
peace.    Meanwhile  the  work  of  reorganization  had  begun. 

Although  there  is  no  definite  statement  by  the  authorities  as 
to  a  general  census  of  the  Spanish  people,  it  may  safely  be 
assumed  that  an  enumeration  of  the  inhabitants  as  a  basis  for 
taxation  and  military  levies  was  made  by  Augustus  soon  after 
a  similar  task  had  been  undertaken  in  the  Gallic  provinces.4  At 
the  same  .time,  under  the  direction  of  Agrippa,  there  was  com- 
piled a  mass  of  geographical  statistics  which  furnished  the  later 
writers  on  Spain  practically  all  their  information  concerning 
roads,  towns  and  natural  features  of  the  country.5  It  was  in 
this  work  of  Agrippa  that  there  appeared  for  the  first  time  de- 
tails of  the  tripartite  division  of  the  Spanish  provinces.  The 
inadvisability  of  continuing  the  old  units  of  Hither  and  Farther 
Spain,  even  as  military  districts,  had  been  recognized  by 
Pompey ;  and.  the  strategy  of  the  Cantabrian  war  rendered  de- 
sirable a  division  which  would  unite  the  northwest  quarter  of 
Spain  under  the  control  of  a  single  authority.  In  this  survey  of 
Agrippa,  Baetica  included  the  territory  bounded  on  the  south  by 
the  Atlantic  and  the  Mediterranean  from  the  mouth  of  the  river 
Anas  to  the  southernmost  point  of  the  lands  of  the  Contestani,  a 
little  below  Carthago  Nova.     From  that  point  the  line  ran  to 


3  Gardhausen,  Augustus  und  seine  Zeit,  I,  691  ff. 

4  Hirschf eld,  Klio,  VIII  (1908),  464-476.    See  Ch.  Ill,  note  1.    Arnold, 
op.  eit.,  141. 

5  Detlefsen,  Die  Anordnung  der  Biicher  des  Plinius,  12,  note  1;  cf.  Braun, 
Die  EntwicMung  der  spanischen  Provinzialgrenzen,  8-81,  100  ff. 


106  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

the  northwest  through  the  country  of  the  Oretani  until  it 
reached  the  Anas  at  a  point  not  far  above  Metellmum;  thence 
generally  along  the  Anas  to  the  ocean.  Lusitania  included  all 
the  western  part  of  the  peninsula,  its  eastern  boundary  being 
the  Anas  up  to  the  point  where  the  Baetica  line  turned  eastward. 
Thence  the  line  ran  to  the  north  until  it  reached  the  Pyrenees.0 
The  combined  area  of  these  two  divisions  was  not  equal  to  that 
of  the  third.  Equality  in  area,  however,  was  not  the  aim  of  the 
administration.  That  other  motives  governed  can  be  seen  in 
the  changes  made  by  Augustus.7  For  the  boundaries  of  Lusi- 
tania were  moved  southward  to  the  river  Durius,  thereby  unit- 
ing in  the  larger  Hispania  Citerior  the  two  most  unsettled  dis- 
tricts of  the  Cantabri  and  the  Astures.  Baetica  was  reduced  by 
a  shift  in  its  northern  boundary,  which  then  reached  the  Mediter- 
ranean at  a  point  between  Murgi  and  Urci  about  seventy-five 
miles  south  of  Carthago  Nova.8 

Almost  three  centuries  passed  before  the  tripartite  division 
was  changed.  During  that  time  Spain  exerted  its  greatest  in- 
fluence on  the  Roman  world.  Differing  widely  as  they  did  in 
natural  resources,  racial  elements  and  degree  of  civilization,  the 
three  provinces  received  varying  forms  of  administrative  atten- 
tion, and  their  contributions  to  Rome  were  correspondingly  un- 
like. Still,  it  was  the  aim  of  the  Roman  government  to  obtain 
administrative  uniformity  throughout  the  peninsula.  Accord- 
ingly, from  the  very  beginning  of  this  era,  certain  levelling 
tendencies  were  set  in  motion,  and  the  forces  and  devices  which 
made  for  unity  were  encouraged,  improved  and  perfected. 

The  importance  of  Roman  roads  as  the  arteries  along  which 
were  poured  the  forces  of  Roman  civilization  was  in  no  place 
better  exhibited  than  in  Spain.  Soldier,  trader,  priest  and 
scholar  used  them  in  quick  succession.  At  their  intersections 
and  terminals  sprang  up  flourishing  cities.  They  made  for  unity 
and   uniformity   as  did   perhaps   no   other  single   work   of  the 

6  Braun,  op.  cit.,  80-81. 

7  These  changes  are  referred  by  Braun  to  7  B.C.  I  prefer  Wallrafen  's 
date,  15  B.C.     See  above,  p.  96. 

8  See  Map,  I.     A  detailed  account  is  given  in  note  A,  p.  117  ff. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     107 

Romans.  In  fact,  the  spread  and  permanence  of  Roman  civiliza- 
tion may  be  followed  by  a  study  of  the  road-building  activities 
and  the  subsequent  establishment  of  Roman  cities  in  the  various 
parts  of  Spain.  It  was  one  of  the  most  significant  features  of 
the  administration  of  Augustus  that  his  improvements  and  addi- 
tions to  the  existing  system  of  roads  were  so  great.9 

In  the  southern  part  of  the  peninsula  Augustus  did  little  save 
to  connect  the  old  military  road  along  the  coast  from  the 
Pyrenees  to  Carthago  Nova  with  the  Caesarian  road  from  Gades 
to  Corduba.  By  this  extension,  Baetica  and  Citerior  were  brought 
into  closer  touch,  and  a  double  exit  was  made  for  the  mineral 
wealth  of  south  central  Spain.  From  Gades  via  Hispalis  and 
from  Corduba,  roads  ran  northwards  to  Emerita,  the  great  cen- 
ter of  southwestern  Spain.  Still  northwards  from  Emerita 
stretched  two  long  highways,  one  to  the  northeast  through 
Caesarobriga,  Toletum,  Segontia,  Bilbilis  to  Caesaraugusta,  the 
other  due  north  through  Salmantica  to  Astiirica.  Two  additional 
lines  of  communication  were  thus  established  between  north  and 
south.  There  remained  for  Augustus  but  one  more  pioneer  task, 
the  connection  of  Tarraco  and  the  east  with  the  remote  north- 
west. This  was  accomplished  by  a  road  from  Tarraco  to  As- 
turica,  Lucus  Augusti  and  Bracaraugusta.  It  is  probable  that 
Spain  and  Gaul  were  more  firmly  joined  at  this  time  by  two 
roads  over  the  Pyrenees,  one  from  Pompaelo,  the  other  from 
Caesaraugusta,  to  Burdigala. 

Provincial  Subdivisions 
Two  new  subdivisions  appeared  for  the  first  time  in  Spain  as 
parts  of  the  administrative  system  of  Augustus.     Of  these  the 
more  perplexing,  both  with  reference  to  its  boundaries  and  to 


9  Material  for  a  study  of  Eoman  roads  in  Spain  was  collected  by 
Hiibner,  in  CIL,  II,  pp.  619  ff.;  to  this  there  have  been  numerous  addi- 
tions in  Ephemeris  Epigraphica,  vols.  VIII  and  IX,  and  in  many  articles 
in  the  Boletin  de  la  real  academia  de  la  historia.  The  itineraries  of  the 
later  Empire  should  be  consulted.  The  best  secondary  sources  are  the 
maps  of  ancient  Spain,  e.g.  Kiepert's;  Berger,  Ueber  die  Heerstrassen 
des  romischen  Reichs  ;  Jung,  RomaniscJie  Landschaften,  p.  44  f.;  Arnold, 
Studies  of  Roman  Imperialism,  p.  143;  Friedlander,  SittengeschicMe,  II, 
17  f.    See  Map  II. 


108  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

the  competence  of  its  officials,  was  the  diocese.10  Hispania 
Citerior  was  divided  into  three  dioceses.  One  of  these  included 
the  territory  which  formed  the  convent  us  Bracarum  and 
Lucensis;  the  second  contained  the  convcntus  Asturum  and 
Cluniensis;  and  the  third  the  conventus  Caesaraugustanus,  Tar- 
raconensis  and  Carthaginiensis.  The  first  was  called  Callaecia, 
the  third  Tarraconensis,  the  name  of  the  second  is  unknown. 

The  term  diocese  had  been  applied  to  a  Hellenistic  division, 
and  from  the  eastern  predecessor  it  is  probable  that  the  subdi- 
vision in  Hispania  Citerior  was  derived.  The  chief  official  of 
each  diocese  was  a  legatus  Augusti,  an  appointee  of  the  princeps, 
although  in  his  work  subordinate  to  the  provincial  governor.  The 
duties  of  the  legatus  were  both  military  and  administrative,  at 
least  in  the  two  dioceses  to  the  north.  Strabo  reported  that  the 
legatus  of  Callaecia  held  command  of  the  two  legions  stationed 
in  his  diocese,  and  the  legatus  of  the  second  diocese  had  one 
legion  under  him.  In  the  inscriptions  some  of  the  legati  are  en- 
titled iuridici,  proving  that  juridical  power  was  also  theirs. 

The  three  dioceses  organized  by  Augustus  were  reduced  to 
two  in  the  principate  of  Claudius,  the  convcntus  Cluniensis  being 
attached  to  the  diocese  Tarraconensis,  and  the  conventus 
Asturum  attached  to  the  diocese  Callaecia.  Under  the  titles 
Asturia  et  Callaecia  and  Tarraconensis  these  two  divisions  re- 
mained unchanged  to  214  a.d.  At  that  date  some  reorganization 
was  made,  probably  the  transference  of  the  western  military 
post,  Legio,  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  eastern  legatus.  Finally, 
under  Constantine  or  Diocletian,  the  diocese  Asturia  et  Callaecia 
became  a  separate  province. 

Each  province  was  subdivided  into  judicial  districts  called 
conventus  iuridici.  There  were  fourteen  of  these  districts  in  the 
Three  Spains,  four  in  Baetica,  three  in  Lusitania,  and  seven  in 
Hispania  Citerior.  Roman  law  had  been  administered  in  the 
Republican  period  by  the  provincial  governors  and  their  assist- 


!o  For  a  discussion  of  the  diocese  see  Kornemann,  in  Pauly-Wissowa, 
V,  716-721;  and  also  "Die  Dioezesen  der  Provinz  Hispania  Citerior," 
Klio,  III,  323-325.  Mispoulet,  Bevue  de  Philologie,  XXXIV  (1910),  309- 
328. 


1916]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     109 

ants,  generally  during  the  months  of  winter  when  the  troops 
were  at  rest.  Under  Augustus  the  time  of  the  sessions  was 
changed  to  the  summer,  the  judicial  centers  were  increased  in 
number  and  made  permanent,  and  the  boundaries  of  their 
spheres  of  jurisdiction  accurately  defined.  Although  Hiibner11 
divided  the  conventus  Cordubensis  into  two  parts,  basing  his 
division  upon  Pliny's  account,  it  appears  more  reasonable  to 
accept  Detlef sen's12  correction  in  punctuation,  and  to  consider 
each  district  a  compact  geographical  unit. 

The  generalization,  commonly  accepted,  that  the  conventus 
were  arranged  in  such  a  manner  as  to  break  up  existing  local 
groupings  is  only  partly  true.13  If  it  had  been  the  intention  to 
dissolve  tribal  organization  by  this  system,  the  districts  to  which 
the  divisive  policy  would  have  been  applied  were  those  of  the 
northwest  where  tribal  loyalty  was  most  in  evidence.  But  the 
civitates  of  the  Varduli,  Cantabri  and  others  were  united  in  the 
same  judicial  area.  In  one  instance  even  provincial  boundaries 
were  set  aside  in  order  to  allow  the  citizens  of  Baria14  to  receive 
their  justice  from  a  conventual  center  in  Baetica.  Conventual 
organization  in  Spain  appears  to  have  acted  as  a  unifying  factor 
rather  than  as  a  divisive  force. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  true  that  a  new  form  of  loyalty  was 
introduced  through  the  conventual  organization.  The  imperial 
cult  appeared  in  conventual  form  in  the  northwest  with  the 
deities,  Rome  and  Augustus,  and  the  priests,  entitled  sacerdotes.15 
This  conventual  cult  did  not  become  popular  in  the  settled  sec- 
tions where  there  were  numerous  municipal  cults,  but  the  idea  of 


n  CIL,  II,  p.  833  and  map.  Kiepert  follows  Detlefsen  in  his  Formae 
Orois  Antiqui. 

12  Philologus,  XXX,  276  f.  He  substitutes  a  full-stop  for  the  comma 
in:  vergentis  ad  mare.     Conventus  vero  Cordubensis  .  .  .   (Pliny  3,  10). 

13  It  is  true  of  Gaul  where  the  tribal  units  were  larger.  In  Spain  each 
conventus  contained  at  least  one  entire  natio. 

14  Adscriptum  Baeticae  (Pliny  3,  19).  Cf.  African  towns  Icosium  and 
Zilis,  similarly  attached  to  Spanish  conventual  districts. 

is  The  conventus  Asturum,  Bracaraugustanus  and  Lucensis  had  sacer- 
dotes.  Conveiitus  Carthaginiensis  had  a  flamen.  For  a  discussion  of  the 
conventual  cult  see  Ciccotti,  I  sacerdozi  .  .  .  deJla  Spagna,  p.  44;  Toutain. 
Les  cultes  pa'iens,  I,  99. 


110  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

a  territorial  division  midway  between  the  urban  and  provincial 
units  was  used  by  the  organizers  of  the  early  Christian  Church.10 
A  third  use  of  the  convent  us  is  indicated  by  the  title  censitor 
conventus.17  To  judicial  and  religious  officials  was  added  an 
imperial  tax-gatherer.  Thus  it  was  that  the  conventus  gradually 
assumed  an  important  position  in  the  administrative  organiza- 
tion of  Spain  and,  as  a  result,  men  came  to  describe  themselves 
as  ex  conventu.18 

Provincial  Officials 

When  Baetica  became  a  senatorial  province,  it  was,  in  theory, 
freed  from  imperial  control,  and  its  officials  were  responsible  to 
the  Senate.  Long  years  of  Roman  occupation  had  made  its  in- 
habitants, even  in  the  days  of  Cicero,  more  Roman  than  the 
Romans.  No  foreign  enemies,  at  least  for  the  next  century,  or 
rebellious  subjects  threatened  to  disturb  its  peace,  no  imperial 
troops  were  needed  for  its  protection.  The  division  of  senatorial 
and  imperial  provinces,  from  which  one  might  expect  marked 
differences  in  administrative  treatment,  was  to  a  great  extent 
formal  and  theoretical,  for,  in  addition  to  their  great  influence 
over  the  Senate,  Augustus  and  the  succeeding  emperors  were  the 
real  masters  of  the  provincial  governors  sent  out  by  that  body. 
Thus,  though  the  titles  of  the  officials  differ,  the  system  of 
government  was  the  same ;  the  actual  differences  arising  out  of 
local  conditions  rather  than  from  any  division  of  governmental 
authority  at  Rome. 

The  chief  officials  of  Baetica  were  a  proconsul  of  praetorian 
rank,  a  legatus  proconsulis  and  one  quaestor.  Its  capital  city, 
the  residence  of  the  governor,  was  Corduba.     The  province  was 


i6  Hiibner  suggested  in  CIL,  II,  pp.  363,  419,  that  a  final  solution  of 
the  conventual  boundaries  question  would  be  based  on  a  study  of  the 
territorial  units  of  the  early  Church.  Jung  repeated  the  suggestion 
(Romanische  Landschaften,  10,  note  2).  Braun  reserved  the  field  for  him- 
self six  years  ago  {Die  Entwicklung  der  spanischen  Provinzialgrenzen,  128). 
We  await  the  result  of  this  investigation. 

17  CIL,  VIII,  7070;  cf.  procurator  c.  Tarrac.  CIL,  II,  3840. 

is  Jung,  op.  cit.,  p.  8,  note  2;  Hiibner,  Hermes,  I,  113  f.  (reprinted  in 
Romische  Heerschaft)  ;  for  a  discussion  of  the  conventus  with  references  see 
Pauly-Wissowa,  IV,  1173-78. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     111 

subdivided  into  four  conventus,  Hispalensis,  Cordubensis,  Astigi- 
tanus,  and  Gaditanus. 

From  an  administrative  point  of  view,  Lusitania  was  the 
least  important  of  the  three  Spanish  provinces.  It  lacked  the 
material  wealth  which  made  Baetica  so  valuable  to  Rome,  and 
on  the  other  hand  there  were  within  its  borders  no  untamed 
tribes  demanding  a  regular  military  establishment  to  keep  them 
in  order.  The  Augustan  colony,  Emerita,  became  the  capital 
of  the  province  and  the  residence  of  its  governor,  a  legatus 
Augusti.  This  official  held  the  proconsular  imperium  from  the 
emperor  and  was  assisted  in  matters  of  finance  by  procurators, 
generally  men  of  equestrian  rank.  The  three  conventus  of  the 
province  were  Pacensis,  Emeritensis,  and  Scallabitanus. 

The  province  Hispania  Citerior  had  an  administrative  or- 
ganization suitable  to  the  complexity  offered  by  its  size  and  local 
differences.  At  the  head  was  placed  a  legatus  Augusti,  of  con- 
sular rank,  whose  residence  was  Tarraco.  This  city  had  the 
double  advantage  over  the  old  capital,  Carthago  Nova,  of  being 
nearer  to  Rome,  and  at  the  same  time  closer  to  the  unsettled  dis- 
tricts of  the  northwest.  While  the  governor's  authority  ex- 
tended over  the  whole  province,  his  attention  was,  for  the  most 
part,  given  to  the  Mediterranean  shore.  Under  him  were  the 
three  subordinate  legati,  one  of  whom  governed  the  district  be- 
hind the  eastern  mountains  from  the  Durius  to  the  Baetis.  A 
second,  with  one  legion,  ruled  the  northern  districts  from  the 
Mediterranean  to  the  territory  of  the  Astures;  while  the  third* 
with  two  legions,  administered  the  extreme  northwest.  There 
were  seven  conventus  in  the  Hither  Province,  Carthaginiensis, 
Tarraconensis,  Caesaraugustanus,  Cluniensis,  Asturum,  Lucensis, 
and  Bracarum. 

Municipal  Organization 

The  most  important  single  document  for  the  study  of  the 
municipal  organization  of  the  western  provinces  by  Augustus 
is  the  Historia  Naturalis  of  Pliny.  In  his  account  of  Spain, 
Pliny  combined  personal  experience,  the  work  of  earlier  geogra- 


112  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

phers  and  the  official  documents  of  Agrippa,  Augustus  and  Ves- 
pasian. The  record  is  by  no  means  a  complete  one,  nor  is  it  free 
from  error,  but,  corrected  and  supplemented  by  the  epigraphical 
evidence  contained  in  the  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum  and 
the  various  additions  thereto,  it  offers  material  sufficient  for  a 
reconstruction  of  the  administrative  organization  of  Spain  under 
Augustus. 

The  three  provinces  contained  a  total  of  399  local  adminis- 
trative units:  26  of  these  were  coloniae,  24  were  municipia 
civium  Romanorum,  48  were  oppida  Latii  veteris,  6  were  oppida 
libera,  4  were  oppida  foederata,  and  291  were  stipendiaria.10 
The  classification  of  these  units  with  reference  to  their  respective 
provinces  is  as  follows : 

Lusitania  Baetica  Citerior 

Coloniae    5  9  12 

Mun.  civ.  Rom 1  10  13 

Opp.  iur.  Lat 3  27  18 

Opp.  libera  6 

Opp  foederata  ....  3  1 

Stipendiaria  36  120  135 

Lusitania20 

Universa  provincia  dividitur  in  conventus  tres,  Emeritensem, 
Pacensem,  Scalabitanum,  tota  populorum  XLV,  in  quibus  coloniae 
sunt  quinque,  municipium  civium  Romanorum,  Latii  antiqui  III, 
stipendiaria  XXXVI.— (Pliny  4,  117). 

Pliny's  description  of  Lusitania  has  been  subjected  to  critical 
examination  by  Detlefsen  and  Wallrafen.  The  number  and 
names  of  coloniae  and  municipia,  as  given  by  Pliny,  have  been 
confirmed  by  epigraphical  evidence.  Of  the  stipendiary  towns, 
thirty -three  were  named  by  Pliny;  the  three  additional  towns 
necessary  to  complete  the  total,  as  suggested  by  Wallrafen,  are 
Aritium,  Caetobriga  and  Ammaia. 

Aside  from  the  striking  difference  in  treatment  between  the 
northern  and   southern  halves  of  the  province,  there  is  little 

19  Reference  should  be  made  to  the  single  example  of  cives  Romani 
qui  negotiantur  at  Bracaraugusta  (CIL,  II,  2433). 

20  See  Map  I. 


1916J   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     113 

worthy  of  comment  in  the  administrative  organization.  This 
difference  of  treatment  is  but  a  reflection  of  the  previous  history 
of  Lusitania,  bounded  on  the  south  by  a  country  of  peaceful  in- 
habitants, drilled  in  civilization;  exposed  on  the  north  to  the 
raids  of  wild  tribesmen  who  neither  taught  civilization  to  their 
neighbors  nor  allowed  them  to  practise  any  of  its  arts  in  peace. 
The  different  levels  of  Lusitanian  life  can  best  be  exemplified  by 
the  Augustan  foundations  in  the  province.  The  one  Lusitanian 
colony  of  Augustus,  Emerita  Augusta,  was  located  in  the  south 
on  the  banks  of  the  river  Anas.  To  the  natural  advantages  of 
location  on  a  navigable  stream,  surrounded  by  fertile  fields, 
Augustus  added  artificial  aids  to  its  growth  by  making  it  the 
terminus  of  a  road  from  the  south,  and  of  two  highways  from 
the  north.  It  was  the  capital  of  the  province,  and  money  was 
lavishly  expended  on  its  public  buildings  by  Agrippa.  It  be- 
came, in  fact,  the  imposing  center  of  a  highly  civilized  area.  Far 
more  humble  was  the  lot  of  a  town  in  central  Lusitania  which 
bore  the  name  of  the  first  princeps.  Augustobriga  was  a  tribu- 
tary town  on  the  Tagus  river.  It  was  apparently  a  new  organiza- 
tion, a  group  of  natives  introduced  for  the  first  time  to  municipal 
institutions.  There  were  no  industries  to  foster  its  growth,  no 
imperial  patrons  to  encourage  its  development ;  it  began  and  re- 
mained simply  a  way  station  on  an  imperial  road.  In  the  north 
a  few  tributary  towns,  chief  among  them  Ocelum  on  the  Durius, 
were  recognized.  But  the  old  tribal  units  were  used  in  this 
backward  district. 

Baetica21 

Iuridici  conventus  ei  HIT,  Gaditanus,  Cordubensis,  Astigitanus, 
Hispalensis.  Oppida  omnia  numero  CLXXV,  in  iis  coloniae  Villi, 
municipia  c.  E.  X,  Latio  antiquitus  donata  XXVII,  libertate  VI, 
foedere  III,  stipendiaria  CXX. —  (Pliny  3,  7). 

Pliny's  totals  for  the  province  of  Baetica  have  been  accepted 
by  scholars  without  change,22  but  his  detailed  account  presents 


2i  See  Map  I. 

22  Halgan,    Essai   sur    I 'administration    des    provinces   senatoriales    sous 
V empire  romain,  pp.  51,  65,  80,  98,  121. 


114  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.4 

difficulties,  some  of  which  cannot  be  solved.  Ten  cities  were 
given  the  rank  of  colony.  Munda  has  been  excluded  because  of 
the  probability  that  it  had  lost  its  title  in  45  B.C.,  and  because 
Pliny  himself  practically  admits  that  its  colonial  status  was  a 
thing  of  the  past  by  his  use  of  the  perfect  tense  "fuit."23  This 
excision  would  leave  the  nine  colonies  of  the  total  given  by  Pliny. 
The  problem  of  identifying  the  municipia  is  more  complex. 
There  are  but  two  of  the  municipia  civium  Romanorum  expressly 
indicated  by  Pliny,  Regina  and  Grades.  Thirty  other  towns  are 
named  to  which  the  status  of  municipium  may  be  attributed.  The 
use  of  a  double  name,  one  Latin  and  the  other  a  local  appella- 
tion, differentiates  these  towns  from  those  of  lower  status.  But 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  tell  which  of  them  possessed  full  rights 
of  citizenship  and  which  held  only  the  Latin  right.  A  study  of 
the  arrangement  in  Pliny's  account  led  Detlefsen  to  add  three 
names  to  the  list  of  Roman  municipia,2*  which  would  give  a  total 
of  five  municipia  civium  Romanorum  and  28  municipia  iuris 
Latini,  as  opposed  to  the  10  m.c.R.  and  27  m.i.L.  of  Pliny.  With- 
out any  definite  statement  of  status,  or  any  corroborative  evi- 
dence, this  addition  of  Detlefsen  cannot  be  taken  as  more  than 
a  possible  conjecture.  There  are  three  communities,  however, 
which  may  be  included  in  the  number  of  municipia  on  evidence 
which,  in  my  opinion,  outweighs  the  report  of  Pliny.  Italica 
was  a  municipium  in  the  Republican  period  and  was  made  a 
colony  by  Hadrian.  It  also  struck  coins  which  are  dated  from 
27  b.c.  to  23  a.d.  Carmo  was  a  large  and  important  town  through- 
out the  Republican  period,  its  citizens  were  assigned  to  the  tribe 
Galeria,  its  Latin  coins  indicate  municipal  status  before,  if  not 
during  the  time  of  Augustus,  its  pontifex  sacrorum  publicorum 
municipalium  was  a  municipal  officer.  Abdera  struck  two  coins 
which  date  from  the  principates  of  Augustus  and  Tiberius.  The 
first,  with  the  inscription  Ti.  Caesar  Augusti  F.,  is  Augustan, 
and  bears  also  the  letters  D.D.,  which  prove  the  existence  of  a 
municipal  decurionate.     The   Tiberius   coin   does  not   bear  the 


23  Pliny  3,  12:  inter  quae  [colonias]  fuit  Munda. 
24Segida,  Ulia,  Urgao  (Philologus,  XXX,  276). 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     115 

D.D.,  but  the  very  fact  that  a  coin  could  be  struck  bearing  the 
name  of  the  town  shows  that  it  still  retained  its  municipal 
status.  The  flamen  divi  Augusti  and  the  duovir  of  the  inscrip- 
tions also  bear  witness  to  the  status  of  the  town.23 

Of  the  six  oppida  libera  given  in  Pliny's  totals,  but  two  are 
mentioned  in  the  detailed  account,  Astigi  Vetus  and  Ostippo. 
Singilia  Barba  may  be  added  to  the  number  because  it  appears  to 
have  retained  a  hint  of  its  former  status  in  the  name  adopted 
when  Vespasian  granted  to  it  the  Latin  right,  Municipium 
Flavium  Liberum.26  Cartima  has  been  classed  as  a  free  town  on 
account  of  an  inscription  which  was  set  up  in  honor  of  a  de- 
cemvir.27 This  title  is  also  found  in  an  inscription  from  Ostip- 
po,28 and  is,  in  all  probability,  the  regular  magistracy  of  an 
oppidum,  liberum. 

Only  two  oppida  foederata  are  named,  one  being  left  unre- 
corded by  Pliny.  Detlefsen29  has  suggested  Ripa,  and  Hiibner30 
proposed  Suel,  but  neither  of  these  conjectures  can  be  verified. 

The  colonies  of  Baetica  were  increased  in  number  by  three 
Augustan  foundations.'51  In  seeking  motives  for  their  establish- 
ment in  this  pacified  and  thickly  populated  area,  one  must  pass 
by  the  usual  hypothesis  of  military  or  administrative  necessity. 
The  desire  to  foster  economic  growth  may  have  guided  the 
founder  in  the  selection  of  sites,  but  the  most  pressing  problem 
of  Augustus  was  the  discharge  and  settlement  of  his  land-hungry 
veterans.  Some  of  the  older  colonies  of  Baetica  received  groups 
of  legionaries,  and  it  was,  no  doubt,  as  veteran  settlements  that 
the  new  foundations  were  established.  The  cognomina  Augusta 
Gemella,  and  Augusta  Firma  have  a  military  flavor. 

Of  the  municipia,  Gades  alone  honored  Augustus  in  its  name. 


25  With  one  exception  the  municipal  flamines  of  Spain  were  citizens  of 
municipia  or  coloniae.  But  see  Geiger,  Be  sacerdotibus  Augustorum  munici- 
palibus,  3-6. 

26  CIL,  II,  2021,  2025. 

27  Ibid.,  1953. 

28  Ibid.,  5048. 

20  Philologus,  XXX,  271. 

30  CIL,  II,  p.  246. 

31  Astigi,  Tucci,  and  possibly  Asido. 


116  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.4 

It  is  reported32  that  Gades  received  municipal  rights  from  Caesar 
in  45  B.C.,  but  the  cognomen  Augustani  is  taken  as  a  bit  of  con- 
tradictory evidence,  May  it  not  have  come  through  the  con- 
firmation of  Caesar's  grant,  or  because  of  additional  privileges 
(or  settlers)  under  Augustus?  The  title  Parens  which  is  given 
to  Agrippa,  and  the  inscription  Providentiae  Augusta  c  on  coins 
show  at  least  that  the  attentions  of  the  princeps  and  his  lieu- 
tenant were  gratefully  received. 

In  general,  however,  the  southern  section  of  Hispania  Ul- 
terior received  from  Augustus  comparatively  scant  attention. 
The  work  of  Caesar  had  been  sufficiently  thorough  in  the  exten- 
sion of  political  privileges  to  the  urban  communities ;  there  were 
no  townless  areas  necessitating  special  organization,  or  addi- 
tional settlers;  there  were  none  to  punish,  none  to  reward. 
Baetica  worked  out  its  own  salvation  for  almost  a  century  un- 
aided. The  attention  of  Augustus,  and  of  his  successors,  Julian 
and  Flavian,  was  fixed  upon  that  difficult  problem,  the  incor- 
poration and  romanization  of  the  new  land  in  the  northwest. 

Hispania  Criterior33 

.  .  .  civitates  provincia  ipsa  praeter  contributas  aliis  CCXC1II 
continet,  oppida  CLXXVIIII,  in  iis  colonias  XII,  oppida  civium 
Eomanorum  XIII,  Latinorum  veterum  XVIII,  foederatorum  unum, 
stipendiaria  CXXXV.— (Pliny,  3,  18.) 

The  detailed  account  of  this  province  by  Pliny  gives  eleven 
of  the  twelve  colonies  listed  in  the  totals.  Three  towns  have 
been  proposed  for  the  honor  of  twelfth  place,  of  which  Dertosa 
appears  to  have  the  best  claims.34 

With  reference  to  the  municipia,  both  Roman  and  Latin, 
Pliny's  sins  are  those  of  omission.  Eleven  names  of  municipia 
civium  Romanorum  are  given  out  of  a  total  of  thirteen ;  sixteen 
oppida  Latinorum  veterum,  of  a  total  of  eighteen.  Detlefsen35 
wrould  have  us  look  to  the  northwest  for  the  missing  towns  be- 
cause the  three  conventus  of  that  section  have  no  towns  of  higher 


32  Cic.  pro  Balo.  15,  34.     Livy,  32,  2. 

33  See  Map  I. 

34  Pauly-Wissowa,  V,  1,  247. 

35  Philologus,  XXXII,  619-621. 


1916]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     117 

status  definitely  assigned  to  them  in  Pliny's  account.  The  chief 
argument  against  this  view  is  that  a  special  form  of  administra- 
tion was  given  to  this  section  of  the  province.  Whether  or  not 
this  argument  may  be  forced  to  the  extent  of  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  any  municipal  units,  the  fact  remains  that  the  establish- 
ment of  Roman  or  Latin  towns  in  this  district  is  highly  improb- 
able. Bracara  Augusta  had  a  group  of  Roman  citizens  who 
possessed  an  independent  organization ;  a  proof  that  this  was 
not  a  Roman  municipium.  Again,  an  official  was  said  to  have 
performed  all  the  honors  in  his  "res  publica,"  a  term  which 
was  not  applied  to  towns  which  had  been  granted  the  Latin  right. 
The  only  indication  of  higher  status  in  any  of  these  communi- 
ties is  the  appellation  urbs  attributed  to  Asturica  Augusta  by 
Pliny.  The  evidence  will  support  the  conclusion  that  there  were 
fifteen  stipendiary  units  established  by  Augustus  in  this  newly 
conquered  territory,  but  it  does  not  bear  out  Detlefsen's  con- 
jecture that  towns  of  higher  status  were  founded  there  by 
Augustus.36 

The  effect  of  the  reorganization  upon  the  Hither  Province 
was  to  emphasize  the  importance  and  to  accelerate  the  develop- 
ment of  the  north.  Augustus'  choice  of  Tarraco  as  the  provin- 
cial capital  and  the  favors  shown  to  the  northern  port  meant  the 
gradual  decline  of  Carthago  Nova.  The  foundations  of  Barcino, 
Caesaraugusta  and  Dertosa  gave  an  impetus  to  the  economic 
development  of  the  Ebro  valley,  and  the  establishment  of  mili- 
tary camps  in  the  northwest  offered  protection  to  those  desiring 
to  exploit  the  mineral  wealth  of  that  district.  The  three 
Augustan  colonies  in  the  south,  Ilici,  Libisosa  and  Salaria,  were 
veteran  settlements,  as  were  the  four  colonies  of  the  north. 
Viritane  and  group  allotments  were  also  made  to  veterans,  and 
around  the  military  camps  there  grew  up  settlements  in  which 
veterans  undoubtedly  resided. 

Note  A 
The  details  of  the  final  Augustan  division  are  as  follows.   The 
boundaries  of  the  province  of  Baetica,  beginning  at  the  south- 


:;r, 


See  Chap.  V 


118  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

west  corner,  included  the  town  of  Murgi.37  Epigraphical  evi- 
dence has  helped  to  fix  the  location  of  this  town  close  by  the  sea 
in  the  modern  Campo  de  Dalias.38  The  exact  line  between  Baetica 
and  the  nearer  province  lay  between  Murgi  of  the  former  and 
Urci  of  the  latter.39  Following  possibly  the  course  of  some  inter- 
vening stream,  the  boundary  reached  the  watershed  of  Mons 
Solonius,40  keeping  to  that  natural  line  up  to  the  point  where 
it  sinks  into  the  valley  south  and  east  of  Granada.  There  the 
line  turned  northward,  passing  to  the  east  of  Illiberi.41  The  next 
point  which  may  with  certainty  be  attributed  to  the  territory  of 
Baetica  is  Tucci.42  With  equal  certainty,  Mentesa43  lies  within 
Hispania  Citerior.  The  natural  boundary  between  these  two 
would  be  the  Guadalbullon,44  a  tributary  of  the  Baetis.  Follow- 
ing along  this  stream  the  provincial  line  would  reach  and  include 
Ossigi,45  at  which  point  the  river  Baetis  first  enters  the  province 
to  which  it  has  given  its  name.  Such  a  line  would  place  the 
municipium  Aurgi46  within  Baetica. 

After  crossing  the  Baetis  the  boundary  can  be  described  only 
in  the  most  general  terms.  It  is  known  that  Sisapo47  was  in 
Baetica,  that  Oretum48  was  in  Citerior.  Somewhere  between 
these  towns,  through  the  Saltus  Castulonensis41'  and  along  the 
ridges  of  the  Sierra  Morena,  the  Roman  surveyors  marked  the 
line,  bearing  away  to  the  northwest  until  they  reached  the  cleft 
through  which  the  Anas  pours  its  waters  to  the  south.  This  was 
the  meeting-point  of  the  three  provinces.  From  the  southeast 
came  the  line  between  Baetica  and  Citerior.     Northward  along 


37  Pliny  3,  8;  cf.  3,  17. 

38  CIL,  II,  5489. 
30  Pliny  3,  6. 

40  Pliny,  3,  6. 

«  Pliny  3,  10.    Ptol.  2,  4,  9. 

42  Pliny  3,  12.     CIL,  II,  p.  221. 

43  CIL,  II,  p.  234. 

44  Braun,  Die  EntwicMung  der  spanischen  Provinzialgrenzen,  113. 

45  CIL,  II,  p.  293. 

46  Pliny  3,  9.     CIL,  11,  p.  293. 

47  Pliny  3,  14. 

48  Pliny  3,  25. 

40  Braun,  op.  cit.,  93,  107,  113  f. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     119 

the  Anas  ran  the  boundary  between  Citerior  and  Lusitania.  To 
the  west  and  south,  following  the  valley  of  the  Anas,  stretched 
the  line  between  Baetica  and  Lusitania. 

The  Anas  is  given  both  by  Pliny50  and  by  Ptolemaeus51  as 
the  northern  and  western  boundary  of  Baetica.  But  the  state- 
ment is  true  only  in  a  loose  and  general  sense.  In  no  part  of  its 
course  did  the  line  cross  the  river  to  its  right,  or  western  bank, 
for  the  towns  along  that  bank,  Lacimurga,52  Metellinum,53 
Emerita  Augusta,54  Myrtilis,55  and  Aesuris,56  are  all  assigned  to 
Lusitania.  That  the  boundary  did  leave  the  river  line  on  the 
left  side  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  territory  of 
Emerita  Augusta  was  to  be  found  across  the  river.57  Serpa,58  a 
town  of  Lusitania,  is  also  on  the  left  bank,  and  Fines,50  which 
was  evidently  a  border  station  between  the  two  provinces,  lay 
thirteen  miles  east  of  Serpa. 

The  dividing  line  between  Lusitania  and  Citerior  passed 
through  a  mountainous  and  sparsely  settled  country.  After 
leaving  the  Anas  where  that  river  turned  sharply  to  the  south- 
east, the  boundary  continued  northward,  passing  between 
Caesarobriga00  and  Toletum.61  Libora  is  mentioned  by  Ptole- 
maeus62 as  a  town  on  the  Tagus  below,  that  is,  west  of  Toletum, 
still  in  Citerior.  The  exact  site  of  Libora  is  still  in  dispute,  al- 
though its  direction  from  Toletum  is  accepted  by  authorities. 
The  result  is  that  the  boundary  must  have  crossed  the  Tagus 
nearer   Caesarobriga  than   Toletum.     Thence  the   line   ran  be- 


«o  Pliny  3,  7;  cf.  3,  17. 
Bi  Ptol.  2,  5,  1. 

52  Pliny  3,  13.    Ptol.  2,  5,  7. 

53  Pliny  4,  117.    Ptol.  2,  5,  6. 

54  Pliny  4,  117.  Ptol.  2,  5,  6. 
•r>r»  Pliny  4,  117.  Ptol.  2,  5,  6. 
oe  C1L,  II,  p.  786. 

57  Frontinus,  de  controv.  agror.  1,  51  (ed.  Lachmann), 

58  Braun,  op.  cit.,  119  ff. 

59  Ibid. 

go  Pliny  4,  118. 
6i  Ptol.  2,  6,  56. 
62  Ptol.  2,  6,  56.    Braun,  op.  cit.,  116-117. 


120 


University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 


tween  the  Vaccaei03  of  Citerior  and  the  Vettones  of  Lusitania. 
Avela,,i4  about  fifty  miles  north  of  Caesarobriga,  according  to 
Pliny's  account,  lay  in  Citerior,  although  it  was  placed  in  Lusi- 
tania by  Ptolemaeus.65  Thus  far  the  direction  was  almost  due 
north,  but  by  a  shift  to  the  north-northwest  the  boundary 
reached  the  Durius  at  a  point  just  below  Arbocala.  Kiepert,06 
following  Ptolemaeus,  does  not  join  the  line  to  the  Durius  until 
Ocelodunum  is  passed,  but  I  prefer  the  interpretation  of  Braun,67 
who  defends  Pliny  and  places  Ocelum  in  Lusitania.  From  some 
point  slightly  below  Arbocala  the  boundary  followed  the  Durius 
to  the  sea. 


V.  NON-URBAN  UNITS 

One  of  the  most  interesting  and  at  the  same  time  one  of  the 
most  intricate  problems  solved  by  the  Roman  government  in 
Spain  was  the  administration  of  the  half -civilized  districts  of 
the  interior.  When  the  Romans  first  entered  the  Iberian  penin- 
sula, they  had  to  deal  not  only  with  city-states,  but  also  with 
tribal  groups  and  with  smaller  units  which  had  asserted  their 
independence  of  a  central  tribal  authority  without  assuming  the 
organization  of  a  city-state.  The  larger  groups  were  ethnic 
kingdoms  possessing  a  dangerous  unity  in  time  of  war,  and  for 
that  reason  were  invariably  broken  up  by  the  Romans  as  soon 
as  they  were  conquered.  It  was  the  custom  of  historians  and 
other  writers  of  antiquity  to  describe  these  ethnic  groups,  such 
as  the  Lusitani  and  Celtiberi,  by  the  word  gentes.  But  each 
group  was  actually  a  number  of  gentes.  Thus,  for  example,  the 
Lusitani  consisted  of  Elbocori,  Turduli  Veteres,  Paesures,  and 
others.  If  external  influences  had  not  altered  the  political  de- 
velopment of  Spain,  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  larger  units 
would   have   gradually   overshadowed   the   original   constituent 


63  Braun,  op.  cit.,  67,  94  ff. 

«4  Pliny  3,  19. 

65  Ptol.  2,  5,  7. 

ee  Formae  Orbis  Antiqui,  XXVII. 

67  Braun,  op.  cit.,  117  f. 


1916J   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     121 

elements  and  in  the  end  would  have  become  united  under  a  few 
leaders,  perhaps  a  single  one.  Such  was  the  growth  of  Spain 
after  the  expulsion  of  the  Moors,  and  such  was  the  development 
of  England  from  449  to  828.  But  the  processes  were  reversed 
in  the  Iberian  peninsula  by  the  introduction  of  the  city-state 
principle.  The  tribal  units  of  Baetica  had  been  disintegrated  by 
the  driving  attacks  of  the  Barcids  and  by  the  no  less  potent  in- 
fluence of  the  Phoenician  and  Greek  independent  settlements. 
The  separate  gentes  asserted  themselves  as  the  true  political 
units ;  some  centering  about  a  citadel  and  taking  up  the  forms  of 
city-state  organization,  while  others  retained  their  pastoral  or 
agricultural  status.  This  independent  spirit  in  the  smaller  units 
was  found  not  only  in  Baetica  and  southern  Lusitania  but  also 
along  the  Mediterranean  littoral.  Rome  found  in  Saguntum  an 
independent  city-state  with  which  she  could  make  a  treaty  by 
225  B.C.  and  the  gentes  of  the  northeast  were  small  units.  Only 
in  the  interior  did  the  tribal  kings  maintain  their  authority. 

The  conquering  Romans  for  the  most  part  recognized  these 
kings  and  their  political  authority  only  as  long  as  they  were 
successful  belligerents.  For  purposes  of  administrative  organ- 
ization they  dealt  directly  with  the  constituent  gentes.  When- 
ever the  circumstances  permitted,  municipal  units  were  formed, 
but  many  of  the  stipendiaria  still  retained  their  gentile  char- 
acter. Schulten1  makes  the  distinction  between  urban  and  non- 
urban  units  that  the  former  were  given  names  ending  in  -enses, 
the  latter  names  ending  in  -tani.  In  Lusitania  only  three  units 
thus  denote  their  non-urban  organization,  the  Aranditani,  Cibili- 
tani  and  Igaeditani.  But  Hispania  Citerior  contains  fifteen 
names  of  this  sort,  all  of  them  with  the  rank  of  stipendiaria. 

Another  group  of  non-urban  units  in  Lusitania  and  Hispania 
Citerior  are  designated  by  a  nominative  plural  ending  in  -i. 
There  are  six  of  these  names  in  Pliny's  account  of  Lusitania, 
classed  as  stipendiaria.2 

It  is  evident  that  neither  the  ending  -tani  nor  -i  indicates  ad- 


i  Bhein.  Mus.,  L,  508. 

2  Colarni,  Elbocori,  Paesuri,  Tapori,  Turduli  veteres,  Barduli. 


122  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

ministrative  units  which  were  even  lower  in  status  than  the 
stipe ndiaria.  But  in  Pliny's  description  of  Hispania  Citerior, 
there  were  114  civitates  of  precisely  this  character.3  All  indica- 
tions point  to  their  location  in  the  conventus  of  northwestern 
Spain.  There  the  opportunities  for  the  assertion  of  local  inde- 
pendence were  meager,  tribal  organization  was  strongest,  and 
the  need  of  a  different  form  of  organization  by  the  Romans  im- 
perative. The  organization  of  this  district  has  been  discussed 
by  Detlefsen  in  an  article  on  the  Hither  Province4  and  by  Hiib- 
ner  in  the  Corpus/'  Their  results  have  been  criticized  by  Schul- 
ten  in  a  special  study  of  the  peregrine  communities  of  the  Roman 
Empire. ,;  The  conclusions  of  Schulten  have  been  followed  with 
but  few  changes. 

The  main  problems  are  those  of  terminology,  for  not  only 
does  Pliny,  the  chief  source,  contradict  himself,  but  he  also  dif- 
fers from  the  usage  of  the  inscriptions.  Pliny  describes  one  of 
these  conventus  as  follows: 

In  Cluniensem  conventum  Varduli  ducunt  populos  XIIII,  ex  quibus 
Alabanenses  tantum  nominare  libeat,  Turmogidi  IIII,  in  quibus  Segisa- 
monenses  et  Segisamaiulienses.  In  eundem  conventum  Carietes  et  Ven- 
nenses  V  civitatibus  vadunt,  quarum  sunt  Velienses.  Eodem  Pelendones 
Celtiberum  111  I  populis,  quorum  Numantini  fuere  clari,  sicut  in  Vac- 
caeorum  XVII  civitatibus  Intercatienses,  Palantini,  Lacobrigenses,  Cau- 
censes.  Nam  in  Cantabricis  VII  populis  Iuliobriga  sola  memoratur,  in 
Autrigonum  X  civitatibus  Tritium  et  Virovesca.  Arevacis  nomen  dedit 
flumen  Areva.  Horum  VI  oppida,  Secontia  et  Uxama,  quae  nomina 
crebro  aliis  in  locis  usurpantur,  praeterea  Segovia  et  Nova  Augusta, 
Termes  ipsaque  Clunia  Celtiberiae  finis.  Ad  oceanum  reliqua  vergunt 
Vardulique  ex  praedictis  et  Cantabri.     (Pliny  3,  26.) 


If  the  contents  of  this  quotation  be  analyzed  and  the  ter- 
ritorial units  classified  in  the  order  of  their  size  (or,  better,  of 
their  inclusiveness),  it  will  be  found  that,  after  the  conventus 
itself,  the  largest  units  are  represented  by  the  names  Varduli, 


3  293  civitates  less  179  urban  units  leaves  114  non-urban  units. 
*  PhiJologus,  XXXII,  603-614,  659-668. 

5  CIL,  II.     See  the  introductory  remarks  to  each  conventus. 
fiKhein.  Mus.,  L,  495  ff. 


1916]   yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     123 

Turmogidi,  Carietes  et  Vennenses,  Pelendones  Celtiberum,  Vac- 
caei,  Cantabri,  Autrigones,  Arevaci.  These  larger  units  contain 
smaller  divisions  which  are  called  populi  (Alabanenses,  etc.), 
civitates  (Velienses,  etc.)  and  oppida  (Secontia,  etc.).  Judged 
by  the  standards  of  usage  in  his  preceding  descriptions,  Pliny 
employed  the  terms  Varduli,  Turmogidi,  etc.,  here  simply  as 
"historical  reminiscenses. "  That  is  to  say,  we  would  conclude 
that  these  larger  units  had  no  political  status,  and  that  the  terms 
were  merely  descriptive  with  a  purely  geographical  significance. 
It  would  then  follow  that  the  populi  and  civitates  were  munici- 
palized gentes.  But  we  learn  from  inscriptions  that  Varduli 
retained  a  political  and  administrative  meaning,  for  an  official 
was  appointed  for  taking  the  census  of  the  civitates  of  the  Vas- 
cones  and  Varduli.7  Military  diplomas  also  record  alae  and 
cohort es  of  the  Varduli,  Cantabri  and  Carietes.8  The  best  proof 
of  the  continued  status  of  these  larger  units  lies  in  the  use  of 
their  names  to  designate  the  origo  of  individuals.0  A  natural 
conclusion,  based  on  this  evidence,  is  that  the  larger  units  are 
gentes  and  the  smaller  populi  are  divisions  of  gentes.  Satisfac- 
tory as  this  conclusion  may  appear,  it  does  not  agree  with  all  the 
facts  as  we  know  them.  The  fundamental  objection  voiced  by 
Schulten  is  that  divisions  of  gentes,  for  example  pagi,  are  not 
and  cannot  be  independent  of  the  gens  of  which  they  are  a  part. 
But  there  are  proofs  of  the  independence  of  some  of  these 
populi.10  Therefore  Schulten  asserts  that  the  larger  units  of 
the  four  conventus  were  nationes,  or  groups  of  gentes;  that  the 
populi  and  civitates  were  gentes;  and  that  the  oppida  of  these 
conventus  were  not  true  oppida  but  castella,  which  possessed  no 
legal  status.  Before  discussing  his  reasons  for  presenting  this 
hypothesis  I  shall  add  the  other  sections  of  Pliny  relating  to  the 
northwestern  district. 


7  CIL,  VI,  1463. 

8  A  partial  list  of  alae  and  cohortes  is  given  by  Detlefsen,  Philologus, 
XXXII,  660  ff.  Cf.  Wilmanns,  1520;  Orelli-Henzen,  III,  3900,  5433,  5442. 
Indices,  pp.  137-138. 

o  CIL,  II,  4233,  4240,  4192,  4191,  3061,  6093. 
io  Ibid.,  760,  2633. 


124  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

Iunguntur  iis  Asturum  XXII  populi  divisi  in  Augustanos  et  Trans- 
montanos,  Asturica  urbe  magnifica.  In  his  sunt  Gigurri,  Pesiei,  Lan- 
cienses,  Zoelae.  Numerus  omnis  multitudinis  ad  CCXL  liberorum  capi- 
tum.  Lucensis  conventus  populorum  est  sedecim,  praeter  Celticos  et 
Lemavos  ignobilium  ac  barbarae  appellationis,  sed  liberorum  capitum 
ferine  CLXVI.  Simili  modo  Bracarum  XXII1I  civitates  CCLXXXY 
capitum,  ex  quibus  praeter  ipsos  Bracaros,  Biballi,  Coelerni,  Callaeci, 
Equaesi,  Limici,  Querquerni  citra  fastidium  nominentur.     (Pliny  3,  28.) 

A  Pyrenaeo  per  oceanum  Vasconum  saltus,  Olarso,  Vardulorum  op- 
pida,  Morogi,  Monosca,  Vesperies,  Amanum  portus,  ubi  nunc  Flaviobrica 
colonia;  Civitatium  novem  regio  Cantabrorum,  flumen  Sauga,  portus  Vic- 
toriae  Tuliobricensium,  ab  eo  loco  fontes  Hiberi  XL  p.  portus  Blendium. 
Orgenomesci  e  Cantabris.  Portus  eorum  Vereasueca.  Eegio  Asturum, 
Noega  oppidum,  in  paeninsula  Pesiei,  et  deinde  conventus  Lucensis,  a 
flumine  Navialbione  Cibarci,  Egi,  Varri  cognomine  Namarini,  ladovi, 
Arroni,  Arrotrebae.  Promuntorium  Celticum,  amnes  Florius,  Nelo.  Celtici 
cognomine  Neri  et  Supertamarci,  quorum  in  paeninsula  tres  arae  Sestianae 
Augusto  dicatae,  Copori,  oppidum  Noeta,  Celtici  cognomine  Praestamarci, 
Cileni.  ...  A  Cilenis  conventus  Bracarum,  Helleni,  Grovi,  castellum  Tyde, 
Graecorum  subolis  omnia.  Insulae  Siccae,  oppidum  Abobrica.  Minius 
amnis  IIII  ore  spatiosus,  Leuni,  Seurbi,  Bracarum  oppidum  Augusta,  quos 
super  Gallaecia.  Flumen  Limia.  Durius  amnis  ex  maximis  Hispaniae, 
ortus  in  Pelendonibus  et  iuxta  Numantiam  lapsus,  dein  per  Arevacos 
Vaccaeosque  disterminatis  ab  Asturia  Vettonibus,  a  Lusitania  Gallaecis, 
ibi  quoque  Turdulos  a  Bracaris  arcens.     (Pliny  4,  110.) 

In  the  three  conventus  thus  described  there  were  four  larger 
units  containing  populi,  civitates  and  oppida,  the  Astures  Augus- 
tani,  Astures  Transmontani,  Bracares  and  Lucenses.  The  proof 
that  these  four  groups  and  the  nine  similar  groups  of  the  con- 
ventus Cluniensis  were  used  as  political  units  by  Augustus  and 
were  not  merely  geographical  terms  is  found,  as  I  have  said,  in 
the  inscriptions,  particularly  in  the  epigraphic  use  of  these  names 
to  designate  the  origo  of  individuals.  It  is  true  that  the  form 
used  is  generally  ex  gente  (Cantabro).  But  the  term  gens  is 
also  applied  in  an  official  document11  to  the  Zoelae,  one  of  the 
populi  of  the  Astures.  Either  this  use  of  the  term  gens  is  incor- 
rect, or  the  use  of  the  term  by  the  Cantabrian  cives,  for  the  two 
units  were  evidently  not  considered  equal  in  the  Roman  scheme 
of  administration.  Fortunately  there  is  a  test  which  may  be 
applied  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  terminology.     A  gens 


ii  Ibid.,  2633. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     125 

cannot  be  divided  into  non-urban  units  which  are  independent 
politically  of  the  gens.12  The  only  method  of  achieving  local 
independence  under  the  Roman  system  was  by  incorporation  on 
a  municipal  basis.  But  there  are  proofs  of  independent  action  on 
the  part  of  the  units  described  by  Pliny  as  populi  which  had  no 
such  municipal  basis.  This  action  can  be  explained  only  on  the 
hypothesis  that  the  larger  units  were  nationes  and  the  smaller 
ones  gentes. 

Populi  and  civitates  are  interchangeable  terms.  Most  of  these 
populi  bear  names  which  indicate  complete  absence  of  any 
municipal  characteristics,  for  example,  Orgenomesci,  Gigurri. 
Pesici,  and  Zoelae.  Still  other  have  names  such  as  are  com- 
monly applied  to  communities  known  in  the  province  of  Africa 
as  res  publicae.13  A  res  publica  had  many  of  the  forms  of  an 
oppidum  stipendiarium  without  its  status,  possessed  an  ordo, 
territorium,  magistri,  and  its  inhabitants  were  wont  to  style 
themselves  cives,  although  they  were  de  jure  only  incolae.  Up 
to  this  point  the  contention  of  Schulten  that  these  populi- 
civitates  were  gentes  holds  without  question,  but  there  are  listed 
among  these  populi  certain  names,  e.g.  Iuliobriga,  Secontia, 
Uxama,  which  look  like  town-names,  and  which  are  called  oppida. 
If  populus  and  oppidum  are  synonomous,  then  populus  cannot 
equal  gens.  By  way  of  reply  to  this  objection,  Schulten  demon- 
strates, using  epigraphic  evidence,  that  the  oppida  were  de  jure 
castella.14  As  a  partial  excuse  for  the  technical  error  of  Pliny, 
he  suggests  that  these  communities  were  larger  than  the  average 
casteMum,  approaching  the  dignity  of  a  true  oppidum  in  size  at 
least.  He  also  ventures  the  conjecture  that  these  castella  were 
centers  of  former  gentes.  This  conjecture,  if  accepted,  would 
fill  out  the  series  of  steps  through  which  each  unit  of  these  north- 
western conventus  would  have  to  go  in  order  to  reach,  let  us  say, 
the  dignity  of  a  municipium.  The  progress  of  any  of  these 
groups  may  be  traced  as  follows.    At  the  entry  of  the  Augustan 


12  Schulten,  Ehein.  Mus.,  L,  496. 
is  Ibid.,  under  ' l  Africa. ' ' 
i*  Ibid.,  p.  499. 


126  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

troops  the  Lancienses  were  a  gentile  group  of  the  natio  Asturum. 
After  the  conquest  they  were  still  considered  as  a  part  of  the 
Astures  for  purposes  of  military  levies,  census,  etc.  They  had 
reached  such  a  state  of  political  development  before  the  con- 
quest,15 however,  that  instead  of  remaining  a  simple  gens,  they 
were  advanced  one  step  and  were  allowed  to  call  themselves  a 
res  publico,.16  The  res  publica  became  more  and  more  urban  in 
character  until  it  reached  the  rank  of  stipe  ndiarium.  The  status 
of  municipium,  one  step  beyond,  was  reached  before  the  time  of 
Trajan.17 

Although  agreeing  in  general  with  the  solution  of  the  Plinian 
puzzle  by  Schulten,  I  differ  with  him  in  one  point.  Induced, 
perhaps  by  a  desire  for  uniformity,  Schulten  denies  political 
status  to  any  urban  district  in  the  four  conventus  of  northwestern 
Spain,  with  the  exception  of  Asturica.  There  are  arguments 
both  general  and  specific  which  may  be  cited  in  contradiction  of 
so  sweeping  a  generalization. 

It  is  a  common  and  unchallenged  tribute  to  Augustus  to  say 
that  he  sought  to  Romanize  the  provincials  by  municipalization. 
It  is  true  that  in  Gaul  and  in  Africa  the  existing  political  organ- 
ization was  left  practically  untouched.  But  even  in  these  cases 
some  exceptions  were  made,  and  Roman  municipal  organizations 
were  established  in  the  midst  of  tribal  groups.  The  advisability 
of  inaugurating,  at  least,  a  municipal  system  in  northwestern 
Spain  was  most  obvious,  for  until  the  district  was  truly  pacified 
one-eighth  of  the  Roman  army  had  to  be  stationed  there.  Still 
Schulten  asserts  that  the  country  was  left  without  a  single 
municipal  organization  after  which  the  tribal  communities  might 
pattern. 

It  will  be  noted,  too,  that  in  order  to  retain  his  uniformity 
theory  Schulten  has  to  reject  Pliny's  use  of  the  word  oppidum 
in  its  usual  sense  of  an  independent  municipal  unit,  and  forces 
the  oppida  into  the  class  of  castella  or  vici.     There  is,  in  my 


is  Heiss,  Description  generate  des  monnaies,  252. 
igCIL,  II,  4223. 
17  Ibid.,  760. 


191 61   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     127 

opinion,  a  real  and  intended  antithesis  in  the  phrases  of  Pliny, 
" castellum  Tyde  .  .  .  oppidum  Abobrica."  The  antithesis  was 
not  based  on  size,  or  on  relative  importance.  It  simply  records 
the  status  of  the  two  communities. 

If  it  is  accepted  as  probable  that  Augustus  made  some  be- 
ginnings in  the  municipalization  of  this  district,  and  that  Pliny 
used  the  term  oppidum  to  denote  these  municipal  beginnings,  an 
examination  of  the  units  thus  described  by  Pliny  tends  to 
strengthen  the  argument  from  probability.  In  addition  to  the 
six  oppida  of  the  Arevaci,  eight  other  oppida  are  mentioned,  to 
which  may  be  added  " Asturica  urbs  magnifica."  The  territory 
of  the  Arevaci,  situated  at  the  southeastern  corner  of  this  back- 
ward district,  was  the  most  obvious  place  for  municipal  begin- 
nings. If  the  work  was  to  be  done  gradually  this  was  the  proper 
place  for  a  beginning.  The  other  oppida  were  situated  on  or 
near  the  seacoast,  and  formed  an  encircling  band  of  civilization 
around  the  backward  district. 

The  acceptance  of  these  fifteen  units  as  urban  communities  of 
at  least  stipendiary  rank  removes  a  difficulty  connected  with  the 
totals  of  Pliny.  Schulten  points  out  that  there  were  129  eivitates 
ascribed  by  Pliny  to  the  four  eonvenius.  Out  of  these  must  come 
the  114  non-urban  units.  If  we  accept  the  dictum  that  the  129 
were  all  non-urban,  it  is  impossible  to  explain  the  discrepancy. 
But  if  the  15  oppida  (14  oppida  and  1  urbs)  be  considered  as 
municipalized  units,  Pliny's  total  of  129  eivitates  minus  15  urban 
units  will  give  the  required  114  non-urban  units. 


VI.  THE  MUNICIPAL  IMPERIAL  CULT 

The  inception  and  growth  of  the  imperial  cult  in  the  Roman 
Empire  have  been  treated  by  scholars  with  varying  degrees  of 
interest.  But  even  those  who  have  given  the  subject  their  most 
careful  attention  have  reached  conclusions  which  are,  to  say  the 
least,  uncomplimentary  to  the  founders  of  the  cult.  We  are  asked 
to  believe  that  the  institution  was  accidental  and  incidental,  the 
voluntary  expression  of  a  contented  people,  without  the  control 


128  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

or  assistance  of  those  it  most  benefitted;  or  we  are  told  that  a 
loathsome  custom  of  the  effete  Orient  was  transplanted  by  a  cal- 
culating princeps  to  the  vigorous  Occident,  and  there  forced 
down  the  throats  of  an  unwilling  people.  The  evidence  which 
comes  from  the  Iberian  peninsula  does  not  support  either  of  these 
conclusions.  It  appears  rather  to  sustain  the  belief  that  the 
natural  and  wholesome  feeling  of  relief  of  the  Roman  world 
when  the  Pax  Romana  was  assured  was  skillfully  crystallized  by 
Augustus  into  an  abiding  institution. 

The  reason  for  reviewing  the  subject  of  the  imperial  cult  in 
the  Spanish  municipalities  is  not  for  the  introduction  of  new  evi- 
dence, but  to  obtain  a  better  understanding  of  the  relationship 
of  the  cult  to  general  administrative  policy.  It  has  been  the 
custom  to  regard  it  as  an  institution  apart  from  the  real  life  of 
the  people,  and  the  governmental  policies  of  the  rulers.  Fiske1 
has  found  some  antecedents  in  Roman  customs  as  well  as  the 
Graeco-Oriental  ingredients ;  Kornemann2  has  considered  the  cult 
as  an  agent  for  the  advancement  of  Roman  Kultur;  Hirschfeld3 
has  noted  the  deep-seatedness  of  the  cult  in  that  its  forms  were 
transferred  almost  intact  to  the  Christian  Church.  None  of 
these  facts  can  be  explained  as  the  result  of  the  adoption  of  an 
Oriental  fad,  or  as  the  product  of  a  cult  introduced  by  a  hypo- 
critical despot. 

While  Augustus  was  slowly  recovering  from  an  illness 
brought  on  by  the  hardships  of  the  Cantabrian  campaign,  he  re- 
ceived in  Tarraco  an  embassy  from  the  people  of  Mytilene  an- 
nouncing the  formal  deification  of  Augustus  by  that  city  in  the 
customary  Hellenistic  fashion.4  The  pleasant  reception  offered 
that  embassy  did  not  escape  the  notice  of  the  local  dignitaries, 
and  they  hastened  to  emulate  their  eastern  fellow-subjects  by  the 
erection  of  an  altar  to  Augustus  in  their  own  city.  The  example 
set  by  Tarraco  was  followed  by  many  other  municipalities  of 


i  G.  C.  Fiske,  Notes  on  the  worship  of  the  Roman  Emperors  in   Spain, 
p.  101  ff. 

2  Kornemann,  Zur  Geschichte  der  antiJcen  Herrscherkulte,  p.  51  ff. 
8  Hirschfeld,  Zur  Geschichte  des  romischen  KaisercuUus,  p.  833  ff. 
4  Heinen,  Klio,  XI,  151,  note  4. 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     129 

Spain  and  the  imperial  cult  had  been  thoroughly  and  firmly 
established  before  the  death  of  Augustus  in  14  a.d.  This  date  is 
important  in  the  history  of  the  municipal  cult  in  that  the  name 
Augustus  then  designated  the  second  princeps.  For,  through  \ 
deification  by  the  Senate  of  Rome,  the  first  princeps  became  divus,  ' 
while  the  title  of  Augustus  was  conferred  upon  his  successor. 
Thus  two  courses  were  open  to  the  devotees  of  the  imperial  cult. 
Sacrifices  could  be  continued  to  the  first  princeps  under  the  name 
divus  Augustus,  or  the  living  princeps  could  be  reverenced  as 
Ti.  Caesar  Augustus,  or  simply  Augustus.  (The  two  might  be 
combined  in  a  cult  divo  et  August o,  but  we  have  no  evidence  of 
such  a  combination).  A  third  and  final  step  was  taken  when 
two  principes*  had  been  officially  deified  in  54  a.d.  Cults  of  the 
divi  were  organized,  and  in  some  instances  the  living  Augustus 
was  included  as  a  member  of  the  divine  group.  The  increasing 
number  of  forms  which  the  imperial  cult  might  assume  is  indi- 
cated in  the  following  table : 

27  b.c.-14a.d.  14-54  a.d.  54-  a.d. 

Augusto  divo  Augusto  divo  Augusto 

Augusto  (=Tiberio)         divo  Claudio 

[Divo  et  Aug.]*  [divis  Augustis]* 

[Augusto  (Neroni)]* 
[divis  et  Aug.]* 
*  No  evidence  of  these  cults  is  found  in  Spain. 

A  closer  study  of  the  municipal  cults  adds  many  details  to 
the  generalizations  of  this  table.  These  details  will  be  pre- 
sented in  chronological  order,  a  method  of  presentation  which 
will  exclude  many  undated  and  undateable  pieces  of  evidence, 
but  which  increases  the  probabilities  of  the  conclusions  based  on 
the  material  presented.  A  superficial  glance  at  the  data  of  the 
municipal  imperial  cults  leads  one  directly  to  the  conclusion  that 
there  was  neither  rhyme  nor  reason  to  the  institution.  Indeed 
one  doubts  whether  such  a  bundle  of  confusion  may  justly  be 
called  an  institution.  Even  a  careful  collection,  assortment  and 
scrutiny  of  details  has  brought  Toutain  to  a  position,  a  state- 


Augustus  and  Claudius. 


130  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

ment  of  which  requires  a  number  of  negatives.0  The  writer  must 
confess  to  a  theory.  He  is  not  convinced  by  the  brilliant  nega- 
tives of  Toutain ;  he  believes  that  the  cult  was  not  a  haphazard 
growth  without  guidance,  but  that  it  possessed  both  rhyme  and 
reason . 

The  imperial  municipal  cult  in  Spain  under  Augustus  had 
the  following  features:  first,  an  altar  dedicated  to  Rome  and 
Augustus,  and  second,  a  priest,  whose  title  was  flamen  Romae  et 
Augusti.  The  assumption  that  this  form  of  the  cult  was  the  only 
one  to  be  found  during  the  lifetime  of  Augustus  is  based  on  the 
evidence  collected  by  Kornemann.7  The  cult  with  its  priestly 
titulary  continued  without  change  in  many  cases  through  the 
centuries,  but  the  date  of  foundation  was  before  14  a.d.  in  every 
case.  There  are  other  proofs  of  the  reverence  paid  to  Augustus 
during  his  lifetime,8  but  the  only  evidence  admitted  here  will 
be  inscriptions  containing  the  names  of  municipal  priests  and 
coins  which  indicate  by  representations  of  altar  or  temple  the 
existence  of  a  cult  in  the  towns  whose  names  they  bear. 

In  addition  to  the  first  cult-foundation  of  Tarraco,  Barcino, 
Castulo,  Complutum,  Pollentia,  Saetabis,  and  Valeria  had 
ft  amines  Romae  et  Augusti.9  To  the  principate  of  Tiberius  must 
be  assigned  the  foundation  of  a  new  form  of  the  cult,  that  of 
Rome  and  the  deified  Augustus,  at  Clunia.10  A  ritual  was  also 
established  at  Olisipo  in  honor  of  Iulia  Augusta,  the  mother  of 
Tiberius,  and  another  in  honor  of  Germanicus  Caesar.11  Tiberius 
himself  received  cult  honors  from  the  citizens  of  Pax  Iulia.12 
The  presiding  priest  was  in  each  case  a  flamen.    But  a  new  title, 


8  Toutain,  Les  cultes  pa'iens,  pp.  96,  101,  113,  152,  167.  May  not  variety 
and  freedom  in  nomenclature  be  admitted  without  receding  from  the 
position  that  the  principes  were  vitally  interested  in  the  imperial  cult? 
Rome's  particularistic  treatment  of  the  Italian  towns  is  never  cited  as 
proof  of  her  indifference.    Quite  the  contrary. 

7  Op.  cit.,  p.  118. 

s  CIL,  II,  2106,  2703,  3524,  5182;  Ephem.  Epigr.,  VIII,  280. 

o  Tarraco,  CIL,  II,  4224,  6097;  Barcino,  4516,  6147,  4520;  Castulo, 
3276;  Complutum,  3033;  Pollentia,  3696;  Saetabis,  3623;  Valeria,  3179. 

io  CIL,  II,  2782. 

ii  Ibid.,  194. 

12  ibid.,  49. 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     131 

pontufex  (sic),  is  given  to  a  contemporary  cult  of  the  Caesars 
at  Anticaria.13  The  Caesars  of  this  cult  were  undoubtedly 
Germanicus  and  Drusus.  The  four  years  of  Caligula  are  repre- 
sented by  establishments  at  Ulia  and  Carma  in  honor  of  the 
deified  Augustus,  and  to  a  foundation  at  Mentesa  in  honor  of 
Caligula's  mother.14  Flame n  is  still  the  title  given  to  the  priest. 
No  inscriptions  of  new  cult  officials  can  be  definitely  assigned  to 
the  principate  of  Claudius,  but  a  flamen  divi  Claudii  of  Tarraco, 
and  the  sodales  Clandiani  of  Cabeza  del  Griego15  should  be  placed 
in  time  near  the  date  of  his  death,  54  a.d.  Fiske  says  of  the  first 
inscription,  "It  is,  of  course,  later  than  54  a.d."16  But  from 
what  we  know  of  Claudius'  policy  in  Britain,17  it  is  possible  to 
believe  that  this  cult  may  have  antedated  the  death  of  the  prin- 
ceps.  In  favor  of  this  view  it  may  be  noted  that  Tarraco  was 
the  religious  center  not  only  of  Hispania  Citerior,  but  of  the 
whole  peninsula,  hence  the  most  fitting  place  for  official  innova- 
tions. The  failure  of  scholars  to  find  any  trace  of  change  or 
addition  to  the  municipal  cults  of  Spain  during  the  principate 
of  Nero  gives  in  addition  an  argument  from  silence.  For  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  Nero  should  add  to  the  glory  of  a  prede- 
cessor without  seeking  a  share  himself.ls 

Before  undertaking  a  summary  of  Flavian  activity  in  cult 
foundations,  some  notes  on  the  Julian  period  should  be  added. 
In  the  first  place,  it  should  be  remembered  that  in  15  a.d.  the 
provincial  cult  was  established  in  Hispania  Citerior,  with  its 
chief  official  a  flamen  Augustalis  (=  flamen  divi  Augusti)  pro- 
vinciae,  and  its  center  adorned  with  a  temple.19  Similar  cults 
were  established  in  Lusitania  and  Baetica,  in  all  probability, 


13  Ibid.,  2038. 

i4  Ulia,  CIL,  II,  1534;  Carma,  5120;  Mentesa,  3379. 

is  Tarraco,  CIL,  II,  3114;  Cabeza  del  G.,  5879. 

is  Op.  cit.,  p.  108. 

17  Kornemann,  Zur  Gesehichte  der  antiken  HerrscTierkulte,  pp.  103-104. 

is  Monuments  to  Nero  may  have  been  destroyed  as  a  result  of  his 
failure  to  obtain  official  apotheosis,  or  by  the  soldiers  of  Galba  before 
official  action  had  been  taken. 

19  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  65,  note  2.  Heiss,  Description  generate  des 
monnaies,  p.  124;  Heinen,  Klio,  XI,  139  ff. 


132  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

during  the  principate  of  Tiberius.20  Another  phase  of  imperial 
cult  development  to  be  noted  is  the  foundation  of  the  conventual 
cults.21  These  were  certainly  not  a  product  of  local  initiative. 
Three  of  them  were  placed  in  districts  where  few  municipalities 
existed.  Their  function  was  educational  in  that  they  presented 
a  concrete  illustration  of  the  principles  underlying  the  new  mon- 
archy. A  third  subject  of  importance  is  the  office  of  flaminica. 
Toutain  has  proved  that  the  title  was  not  conferred  ex  officio 
upon  the  wives  of  the  famines."  If,  then,  they  were  chosen  as 
priestesses  of  cults,  why  were  they  chosen  instead  of  men  ?  The 
answer  is23  that  they  were  elected  to  preside  over  the  temples  or 
altars  of  the  deified  women  of  the  Caesars.  The  date  of  the  first 
flaminica  is  then  to  be  placed  after  the  formal  apotheosis  of  Livia, 
the  first  diva,  in  42  a.d.24  In  conclusion  it  should  be  noted  that 
the  only  titles  for  this  period  of  the  official  municipal  cults  were 
famines  and  faminicae.  The  use  of  sacerdos  and  pontifex  in 
official  cults  of  the  municipalities  is  of  later  origin.2"' 

The  new  foundations  which  can  be  assigned  to  the  Flavian 
period  are  few  and,  in  general,  merely  witnesses  of  the  growth 
of  the  official  pantheon.  Flamines  divi  Vespasiani,  divi  Titi  and 
divi  Traiani  in  Tarraco  have  left  records  to  prove  that  in  the 
capital  of  the  Hither  Province  each  new  divus  was  honored  by 
an  individual  cult.  An  inscription  of  Ipsca  records  the  dedica- 
tion of  a  building,  perhaps  a  temple,  to  Vespasian,  the  donor  and 
dedicator  being  entitled  pontifex  designatus.  The  paucity  of  new 
cults  does  not  necessarily  indicate  any  diminution  in  strength  or 
popularity  of  the  imperial  cult  as  an  institution.  A  reduplica- 
tion of  priesthoods  would  have  been  a  useless  expense  to  the 
municipalities,  for  the  cults  of  Rome  and  Augustus  transferred 


20  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  122  f. 

-1  Ciccotti,  I  sacerdozi,  44  f.;  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  119  f. 

22  Ibid.,  167. 

23  Ibid.,  112. 

2^  An  unofficial  cult  of  Livia  as  Iulia  Augusta  was  established  in  Olisipo 
before  her  apotheosis  (CIL,  II,  194). 

25  Sacerdos  was  the  title  of  the  priests  of  the  conventual  cult  in  the 
northwest.  There  was  also  a  pontufex  [sic]  Caesarum,  but  the  Caesar -es 
were  not  fully  accredited  divi.     Hence  this  cult  was  not  official. 


19161  Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     133 

their  allegiance  from  one  living  ruler  to  the  next.  The  divi  were 
not  completely  forgotten,  however.  Their  names  remained  in 
the  oath  of  allegiance,20  and  the  records  of  their  work  in  roads 
and  buildings  served  as  reminders  of  their  former  greatness.  In 
order  to  make  the  remembrance  of  the  divi  more  lasting,  to  incor- 
porate it  in  the  cult  ritual,  Hadrian  introduced  the  last  important 
innovation  in  the  nomenclature  and  organization  of  the  imperial 
cult.  During  this  emperor's  visit  to  Tarraco  in  the  winter  of 
122-123  a.d.  he  rebuilt  the  temple  of  Rome  and  Augustus,  and 
re-established  the  old  cult  on  a  new  basis.27  The  priests  were 
from  that  time  on  to  pay  honor  to  Rome  and  the  divi.  A  pantheon 
was  thereby  formed  which  would  continue  to  increase  with  the 
deification  of  each  Augustus.  This  change  in  the  provincial  cult 
was  copied  by  many  municipalities,  and  a  number  of  inscrip- 
tions indicate  the  spread  of  the  new  idea  and  its  slightly  varying 
forms.28 

The  evidence  of  the  preceeding  pages  comprises  the  data  upon 
which  the  traditional  interpretations  of  the  municipal  cult  are 
based.  That  Avhich  follows  contains  the  arguments  in  favor  of  a 
new  interpretation.  Stated  in  thesis  form,  that  interpretation 
is :  first,  that  the  imperial  cult  was  the  expression  of  an  emotion 
sincere  in  all  its  aspects;  second,  that  the  organization  and  the 
institutionalizing  of  that  emotion  were  undertaken  with  equal 
sincerity  by  Augustus  and  his  successors  in  the  principate ;  third, 
that  this  institution  was  an  important  feature  of  the  general 
administrative  policy  of  the  Early  Empire  as  was,  for  example, 
the  introduction  of  Roman  Law. 

There  are  certain  primary  objections  to  this  theory,  objections 
which  spring  from  a  prejudice  insidious  and  most  difficult  to 
eradicate,  namely,  the  unconscious  interpretation  of  ancient 
terms  by  modern  ideas.  If  the  meanings  current  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  be  given  to  the  terms  dens,  divus, 
apotheosis,   Augustus,   etc.,   the   charge   of   hypocrisy   so   often 


26  CIL,  II,  172.     Cf.  the  oath  of  the  Lex  Malacitana. 

27  W.  Weber,   Untersuchungen   zur  Geschichte  des  Kaiser  Hadrianus,  p. 
115  ff.    Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  111-112. 

28  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  110. 


134  University  of  California  Publications  in  History 


Vol.  4 


levelled  at  the  participants  in  the  so-called  "worship"  of  human 
beings  is  left  without  support.  After  1600  years  of  monotheism 
the  word  deus  connotes  omnipotence,  omniscience.  It  had  no 
such  significance  to  the  people  of  the  Roman  world  in  27  B.C. 
It  is  true  that  hints  of  an  all-powerful  being  or  force,  superior 
to  all  the  gods,  were  in  the  air.29  The  Stoic  philosophers  were 
seeking  to  raise  Iupiter-Zeus  to  that  high  position,  but  to  the 
vast  majority,  Zeus,  Hera  and  the  other  immortals  were  merely 
supermen  and  superwomen.  There  was  no  impassable  gulf  be- 
tween deus  and  homo.  If  a  deus  (Oeos)  could  enter  an  Oriental 
court  in  the  form  of  a  king,  and  dwell  on  earth  as  long  as  life 
remained  in  that  king's  body,  the  Occidental  could  also  bridge 
the  gap  by  the  apotheosis  of  any  man  who  proved  himself  far 
superior  to  the  average  human  being.  To  the  Greek  the  indi- 
vidual thus  elevated  became  ^corr/p  but  the  Roman  distinguished 
between  the  gods  of  his  ancestors  and  those  homines  who  ob- 
tained divine  honors  because  of  their  res  gestae.  The  latter  he 
termed  divi,  and  indicated  the  potential  divinity  in  candidates 
for  that  honor  by  the  title  Augustus.  If,  "drunk  with  sight  of 
power, ' '  these  men  abused  their  privileged  positions,  future  gen- 
erations refused  to  recognize  them  as  divine.  But  if  they  had 
been  faithful  in  the  performance  of  their  tasks,  they  might  re- 
peat with  all  sincerity  the  words  of  Vespasian  "Puto  deus  fio.": 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  imperial  cult  was 
foisted  upon  the  Roman  West  and  did  not  spring  from  the  hearts 
of  the  people  there,  is  of  three  kinds.  The  first  is  that  of  our 
own  senses.  We  cannot  imagine  a  civilized  man  worshipping 
another  man  as  a  god.  The  answer  is  that  the  Roman  idea  of 
god  and  ours  are  radically  different.  In  the  second  place,  the 
Ides  of  March  are  cited  as  proof  of  the  Occidental  abhorrence  of 
a  god-king.  It  has  been  stated  that  the  tragedy  of  the  Ides  of 
March  was  a  protest  against  the  Oriental  program  of  Julius 
Caesar.  That  program  was  a  varied  one,  containing  a  campaign 
against   the   Parthians,   world-empire,   the    establishment    of    a 


2!>  Warde-Fowler,  Roman  Ideas  of  Deity. 
so  Sueton.     Vespas.  24. 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     135 

dynastic  monarchy,  universal  citizenship,  and  the  deification  of 
the  living  ruler.  It  is  enlightening  to  learn  just  who  were  the 
Protestants  and  to  what  extent  their  protest  was  successful. 
There  were  many  senators  in  the  conspiracy,  representing 
ostensibly  a  large  proportion  of  the  Roman  public.  Did  this 
public  include  the  Roman  populace?  No.  Did  it  include  the 
people  of  Italy  ?  Not  to  the  extent  of  active  participation  in  the 
war  which  followed.  Did  it  include  any  or  all  of  the  western 
provinces?  If  it  did,  they  gave  no  sign.  The  leaders  of  this 
anti-Oriental  group,  strangely  enough,  were  supported  by  the 
legions  of  the  east  and  by  money  wrung  from  Greeks  and  Asi- 
atics, the  last  people  in  the  world  to  protest  against  an  Oriental 
program.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  conspirators  were  encouraged 
by  the  dwindling  middle  class  in  Italy  and  by  a  small  group  in 
Rome,  men  of  theory  like  Cicero,  and  others  who  envied  the 
power  of  Caesar.  In  spite  of  the  weak  showing  of  the  Repub- 
lican party  in  the  west,  there  was  an  element  of  protest  in  the 
Ides  of  March  which  was  not  neglected  by  Augustus.  If  we  com- 
pare the  plans  of  Caesar  and  the  acta  of  Augustus,  we  find  that 
the  "son"  achieved  a  diplomatic  victory  over  the  Parthians,  that 
he  continued  the  advance  towards  world-empire,  that  at  the  end 
of  forty-two  years  (44-2  B.C.)  he  had  established  a  dynastic  mon- 
archy in  all  but  name,  that  he  had  restricted  citizenship  to  the 
sons  of  Italy,  and  that  he  had  based  his  life  work  on  the  sacro- 
sanctity,  the  divine  character,  of  Rome's  First  Citizen.  The 
protest,  as  heeded  by  Augustus,  was  founded  on  the  hatred  of 
the  name  king,  and  on  an  intense  sectional  patriotism,  not  on 
religious  objections  to  the  divine  aspirations  of  rulers.  If  deifica- 
tion, apotheosis  or  incarnation  had  been  ideas  both  new  and 
objectionable  to  the  Roman  people,  Augustus  would  not  have 
sought,  nor  could  he  have  obtained,  their  support  by  insisting 
upon  the  deification  of  his  "father,"  by  assuming  the  title  of 
divi  filius,  and  by  inaugurating  a  literary  revival  which  was 
filled  with  references  to  him  as  Icorrjp  ol/covfjLevrjs^  divinus  puer,\ 
iste  deus,  etc.31 

3i  Heinen,  Klio,  XI,  139  ff. 


136  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

The  third  source  of  evidence  against  the  unwillingness  of  the 
west  to  enter  into  the  spirit  of  the  imperial  cult  is  the  work  of 
Tacitus.  No  historian  of  antiquity  is  more  notorious  for  his 
partisanship,  no  writer  has  a  greater  reputation  for  skillfully 
concealing  the  truth  when  it  does  not  conform  to  his  thesis,  nor 
has  his  equal  been  found  in  ability  to  condemn  with  a  phrase  and 
cast  suspicion  over  a  whole  life  with  an  adjective.  If  the  Roman 
people  had  been  the  unwilling  victims  of  an  imperial  policy  for 
a  century,  the  work  of  Tacitus  would  never  have  seen  the  light 
of  day.  Certainly  in  his  time  the  institution  was  so  firmly  estab- 
lished in  the  hearts  of  the  people  that  the  publication  of  so 
scathing  a  denunciation  could  be  permitted  by  Trajan  without 
fear  of  revolution.  One  may  with  justice  refuse  to  accept  the 
unsupported  testimony  of  a  man  who  spent  the  best  years  of  his 
life  in  silent  protest  against  a  system  which  the  rest  of  the  world 
welcomed.  The  proof  of  that  welcome  is  to  be  found  in  the 
growth  of  the  voluntary  reverence  paid  to  the  rulers  of  Rome. 

That  the  people  of  the  three  provinces  of  the  Iberian  penin- 
sula considered  Augustus  worthy  of  divine  honors,  and  sought 
to  offer  him  those  honors  voluntarily  is  the  conclusion  reached 
after  a  study  of  the  municipal  cult  in  those  provinces.  The  first 
cult  was  founded  in  a  municipality  which  had  every  reason  to 
be  thankful  both  to  Rome  and  to  Augustus  for  its  prosperity  and 
prominence,  and  at  a  time  when  its  favors  had  reached  the  limit 
of  hope  and  desire.  Thanks  to  Rome,  Tarraco  had  risen  from  a 
small  Iberian  village  to  become  the  most  important  city  in  the 
peninsula,32  the  capital  of  its  largest  province.  The  divine 
Julius  had  granted  it  the  ins  coloniae,  and  the  emperor  himself 
had  received  two  consulships  from  the  Roman  people  while  rest- 
ing within  its  walls.  It  is  true  that  the  request  of  the  citizens 
of  Tarraco  may  have  been  forced  from  them  by  a  despotic  mas- 
ter, or  that  they  made  the  request  as  a  matter  of  form,  hoping  to 
flatter  their  visitor  with  a  display  of  reverence  which  they  did 
not  feel.     But  as  the  evidence  cumulates  it  militates  more  and 


32  The  best  account  of  Tarraco  is  that  of  Hiibner,  Bomische  Heerschaft 
in  Westeuropa  (reprinted  from  Hermes,  I,  92  ff.). 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     137 

more  strongly  against  this  hypothesis.  We  cannot  discover  the 
sincerity  of  these  men  by  an  examination  of  the  evidence  which 
they  have  left ;  bnt  by  determining  the  method  of  growth  and 
by  ascertaining  on  which  side  the  initiative  lay,  we  can  at  least 
approximate  the  attitude  of  the  devotees  of  the  imperial  cult. 

The  first  fact  which  attracts  the  attention  is  that  in  all  the 
provinces  of  Spain,  the  municipal  cults  antedated  the  founda- 
tions of  the  provincial  cults.  Again,  it  is  known  that  Augustus 
insisted  that  the  statue  of  the  goddess  Roma  be  associated  with 
his:33  but  "after  the  ascension  of  the  divine  Augustus,"  to  quote 
Tacitus,34  the  request  to  establish  a  cult  to  the  divus  alone  was 
made  by  the  Spaniards.  The  divinity  of  the  first  princeps  was 
recognized  by  the  provincials,  and  in  their  enthusiasm  some  coins 
were  struck  at  Tarraco  with  the  inscription  "Deo  Augusto."35 
In  the  third  place  a  cult  of  Tiberius  Caesar  Augustus  was  surely 
established  by  local  initiative,  not  at  the  request  of  the  princeps. 
Finally,  though  the  official  inclusion  of  other  principes  in  the 
imperial  cult  had  its  beginnings  in  54  a.d.  when  Livia  was  deified, 
still  on  Spanish  coins  struck  before  the  death  of  Caligula  there 
are  references  to  Livia  as  Juno.36  None  of  these  acts  would 
come  from  people  to  whom  the  ideas  of  incarnation  were  re- 
pugnant. 

In  the  establishment  of  a  state  religion,  Augustus  followed 
precedents.  There  was  nothing  new  in  any  of  its  details.  The 
adoration  of  the  goddess  Roma,  which  is  often  described  as  an 
innovation,  had  its  beginnings  in  the  days  of  the  Republic.  Roma 
was  the  Greek  personification  of  the  Eternal  City's  power.  The 
important  position  given  to  this  goddess  by  Augustus  was  a 
pledge  of  his  loyalty  to  Rome  and  to  Italian  nationalism,  not  a 
proof  of  his  reluctance  to  receive  divine  honors. 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  the  sincerity  of  Augustus  and  the 
people  of  the  Roman  "West  in  their  acceptance  of  divine  king- 
ship could  be  strengthened  by  a  study  of  the  spread  of  the  mes- 


88  Heinen,  op.  cit.,  p.  147,  note  5. 

34  "Ab  excessu  divi  Augusti. " 

35  Eckhel,  Doctrina  nummorum,  I,  1,  p.  57. 
30  Heiss,  Description  generate,  272. 


138  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

sianie  idea  throughout  the  Hellenistic  world,  by  an  analysis  of 
political  theories  from  the  days  of  Isocrates  to  those  of  Panaetius 
and  Cicero,  and  by  recognition  of  the  general  demand  for  a  uni- 
versal peacemaker.  To  charge  Augustus  with  hypocrisy  is  to 
endow  him  with  an  intelligence  superior  to  those  of  the  greatest 
political  thinkers  and  theologians  of  his  day.  To  what  extent 
were  his  successors  of  the  same  mind?  The  usual  summary  of 
the  principate  of  Tiberius  may  be  expressed  as  a  series  of  ditto 
marks.  He  is  credited  with  a  continuation  of  the  policies  and 
institutions  of  Augustus.  We  learn  from  Tacitus,  however,  that 
Tiberius  would  not  receive  divine  honors,  that  he  insisted  upon 
his  mortality.  This  was  indeed  a  break  with  the  program  of 
Augustus,  but  it  is  to  be  explained  by  reasons  other  than  the 
ones  generally  advanced.  Tiberius  was  chosen  by  Augustus  not 
so  much  as  his  successor  as  the  guardian  of  the  true  successor, 
Germanicus.37  His  refusal  to  accept  divine  honors  was  in  har- 
mony with  the  wishes  of  Augustus,  at  least  until  the  death  of 
Germanicus.  But  from  that  point  his  refusal  rested  no  longer  on 
the  ground  that  he  was  merely  a  vice-regent.  It  has  been  ex- 
plained as  the  act  of  a  tyrant  who  refused  to  carry  out  the  folly 
of  religious  pretence  to  cloak  his  absolutism.  Tiberius  was  not 
wholly  without  religious  ideas,  however,  no  matter  what  his  at- 
titude towards  the  imperial  cult  may  have  been,  for  we  know 
that  he  was  deeply  interested  in  solar  monotheism.38  He  did  not 
attempt  to  make  his  personal  belief  the  state  religion  of  the  em- 
pire, but  his  withdrawal  from  the  dynastic  cult  system  as  in- 
augurated by  Augustus  weakened  the  whole  Augustan  program. 
The  acta  of  Tiberius  were  not  made  permanent  by  the  deification 
of  their  author,  succession  was  left  to  chance  and  intrigue,  and 
the  continuity  of  policy  disturbed.  The  imperial  cult  had  at 
least  this  measure  of  support  from  Tiberius:  during  his  princi- 
pate provincial  cults  were  established  in  the  three  Spanish 
provinces  and  elsewhere,  and  the  municipal  cults  to  Augustus 
continued  to  increase  in  number. 


37  Augustus  forced  the  adoption  of  Germanicus  upon  Tiberius. 

38  Cf.  the  relations  of  Tiberius  with  Manilius. 


1916]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     139 

It  is  difficult  to  discover  in  the  distorted  accounts  of  a  "mad- 
man's" career  any  proof  of  his  sincerity  in  any  policy.  Never- 
theless, on  the  subject  of  his  own  divinity  Caligula  gave  vent  to 
an  insistence  which  had  none  of  the  earmarks  of  hypocrisy.  If 
the  charge  of  insanity  be  treated  as  false,  the  actions  of  Caligula 
can  be  explained  as  a  tactless  but  forceful  continuation  of  the 
plans  of  Caesar.39  Claudius,  in  his  turn,  believed  that  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  his  position  entitled  him  to  divine  honors.  His 
policy  was  Caesarian  in  that  he  expected  those  honors  before  his 
excessus,  but  to  this  he  added  the  plan  of  Augustus  in  which 
members  of  the  imperial  family  were  to  be  deified,  as  well  as  the 
principes. 

There  are  two  more  ' '  proofs ' '  of  disbelief  in  the  imperial  cult 
and  its  tenets  by  the  emperors.  The  first  is  at  the  expense  of  the 
young  Nero.  It  is  said  that  no  one  who  would  be  pleased  with,  or 
allow  the  publication  of,  Seneca's  Apoholokyntosis  could  be  sin- 
cere in  his  maintenance  of  a  cult  so  ridiculed.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  Nero  was  but  a  youth  when  this  skit  was  read  to  him 

< 

by  his  guardian.  Even  had  he  arrived  at  years  Of  discretion, 
proof  would  still  be  lacking  that  the  institution  and  not  the  in- 
dividual Claudius  was  the  target  of  the  satirist.  Medieval  litera- 
ture abounds  with  attacks  upon  individual  popes  by  men  whose 
belief  in  the  Church  as  an  institution  was  unquestioned.  The 
case  against  Nero  and  his  tutor  is  about  as  strong  as  one  which 
might  be  made  against  Dante  and  his  readers.  The  Victorian 
attitude  of  modern  critics,  together  with  the  feeling  that  indi- 
vidual attack  is  always  at  the  expense  of  the  institution,  has  led 
them  to  accept  the  report  of  Tacitus  with  all  its  insinuations.  In 
like  manner  have  they  made  use  of  the  dying  words  of  Vespasian 
to  demonstrate  the  disbelief  of  that  princeps  in  the  imperial  cult. 
But  these  words  may  be  taken  with  equal  readiness  as  proof  of 
the  sincere  belief  of  an  honest  man  in  his  immortality,  and  in 
the  eternity  of  his  power. 

The  sincerity  of  the  Spanish  people  in  their  initiation  of  the 
various  cult  forms,  and  the  sincerity  of  the  principes  in  organiz- 
es Cf.  Willrichs,  Caligula. 


140  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [VoL-  4 

ing  and  continuing  the  cult  have  their  best  proofs  in  the  im- 
portance of  the  institution,  its  penetration  into  all  social  classes, 
and  its  length  of  life.  The  details  of  organization  have  been 
most  carefully  arranged  and  interpreted  by  Toutain.40  A  repeti- 
tion of  his  conclusions  is  made  here,  simply  to  justify  the  state- 
ment that  the  cult  was  thoroughly  organized.  One  may  object 
to  a  static  treatment  of  an  institution  which  had  an  organic  de- 
velopment, but  there  were  certain  elements  which  were  undoubt- 
edly permanent.  The  center  of  the  cult,  for  example,  was  an 
altar,  or  a  temple.  Representations  of  these  altars  are  to  be 
found  on  the  coins  of  Tarraco,  Emerita  Augusta,  Ilici  and 
Italica  ;41  of  the  temples,  on  the  coins  of  Tarraco,  Emerita 
Augusta,  Ilici,  Caesaraugusta,  Carthago  Nova,  and  possibly  of 
Abdera.42  In  the  case  of  Tarraco,  the  altar  was  erected  and 
dedicated  first  during  the  lifetime  of  Augustus,  while  the  temple 
was  not  built  until  after  the  death  of  the  first  princeps.  It  does 
not  follow  that  this  sequence  was  observed  in  the  cults  inaugu- 
rated after  14  a.d. 

With  reference  to  the  officials,  practically  all  discussions 
agree  in  the  following  general  characterization.  The  names  of 
the  officials  were  flamen^flaminica,  sacerdos  (man  or  woman), 
pontifex  and  magister  Lamm.  The  flaminate  was  an  elective  of- 
fice, probably  annual.  Eligibility  to  office  was  based  on  local 
citizenship  only,  although  the  expenses  connected  with  the  ac- 
ceptance and  performance  of  the  flaminate  restricted  the  appli- 
cants to  those  financially  capable,  and  the  honor  in  which  the 
office  was  held  restricted  the  number  still  more  closely  to  the 
most  popular  of  the  wealthy.  The  office  could  be  held  more  than 
once,  and  in  more  than  one  community  at  different  times.  As  an 
added  token  of  respect,  the  electors  often  granted  an  honorary 
life  flaminate  to  their  favorites. 


40  Les  cultes  pa'iens,  152-69. 

4i  Tarraco,  Heiss,  op.  tit.,  124;  Emerita,  401;  Ilici,  277;  Italica,  380. 

42  For  Tarraco,  Emerita,  and  Ilici,  see  preceding  note.  Caesaraugusta, 
Heiss,  op.  tit.,  202;  Carthago  Nova,  270.  The  Abdera  temple  (Heiss, 
op.  tit.,  310)  may  have  been  an  old  Punic  one,  but  was  apparently  rededi- 
cated  to  the  service  of  the  imperial  cult. 


19:1 6J   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     141 

Although  the  evidence  is  not  so  complete  as  regards  the 
sacerdos  and  pontifex,  scholars  have  agreed  that  these  officials, 
too,  held  an  elective  office  for  one  year,  and  were  governed  by 
the  same  rules  of  eligibility,  honorary  membership,  etc.  It  is 
only  when  attempts  have  been  made  to  differentiate  the  officials 
that  a  great  variety  of  opinions  have  appeared.  The  most  sweep- 
ing negative  statement  is  that  of  Toutain,  who  denies  not  only 
the  possibility  of  obtaining  any  distinction,  but  even  the  exist- 
ence of  any.  He  supports  the  first  position  by  citing  exceptions 
to  almost  every  conceivable  rule,  but  the  affirmation  that  flamen 
and  sacerdos  are  synonymous  terms  rests  upon  a  single  inscrip- 
tion.43 4 

The  one  obvious  flaw  in  this  piece  of  evidence  is  that  it  refers 
to  a  flamitiica,  not  to  a  flamen.  Even  if  this  objection  be  over- 
ruled as  a  quibble,  the  fact  remains  that  the  two  terms  flaminica 
and  sacerdos  need  not  be  considered  synonymous,  because  they 
are  connected  by  the  word  sive.  One  may  ask  why  both  titles  of 
this  priestess  should  so  carefully  be  engraved  if  there  was  no  dis- 
tinction between  them. 

One  distinction  can  be  made  between  flamen  and  sacerdos  in 
the  provinces.  In  the  days  of  the  Republic  there  were  municipal 
sacer dotes  whose  duty  it  was  to  conduct  the  worship  of  the  gods 
of  the  Roman  pantheon.  Fiske44  has  suggested  that  when  the 
municipal  imperial  cult  was  introduced  into  Spain  it  was  some- 
times given  in  charge  of  the  existing  local  sacerdotes,  at  other 
times  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  newly  elected  flamen.  Why  the 
new  priesthood  adopted  a  different  title  he  does  not  seek  to  ex- 
plain. To  accept  the  implied  answer  of  Toutain  that  there  was 
no  rule,  no  uniformity,  that  the  nomenclature  was  a  matter  of 
chance,  or  at  best  depended  on  the  whim  of  the  community,  would 
mean  the  abrupt  cessation  of  all  discussion  or  inquiry.  But  if 
we  insist  upon  the  existence  of  a  rational  mind  directing  the  in- 
stitution, we  may  at  least  continue  setting  up  hypotheses  until 


43  CIL,  II,  3278.  .  .  .  flaminicae  sive  sacerdoti  municipi  Castulonensis. 
Other  examples,  outside  of  Spain,  are  noted  by  Geiger,  De  sacerdotibus 
Augustorum  municipalibus,  3-6. 

44  Notes  on  the  worship,  120  f . 


142  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  I 

the  true  one  is  found,  or  all  possible  conjectures  are  refuted. 
The  writer  has  no  hypothesis  to  propound,  but  he  wishes  to  pro- 
test against  the  position  that  there  is  no  solution  simply  because 
no  solution  has  been  found. 

VII.  MUNICIPAL  DEVELOPMENT  DURING  THE  FIRST 
CENTURY  a.d. 

The  work  of  Augustus  was  fundamental  for  the  growth  of  the 
western  provinces,  but  the  superstructure  of  his  successors  was 
equally  essential.  Although  complete  records,  official  or  unoffi- 
cial, are  lacking,  such  material  has  been  preserved  as  to  justify 
the  assertion  that  Augustus  and  his  successors  used  both  dili- 
gence and  intelligence  in  completing  the  romanization  of  the  west 
through  municipalization.  The  Iberian  peninsula  continued  to 
enjoy  its  favored  position.  No  radical  or  spectacular  steps  were 
taken  in  municipal  development,  but  the  increasing  number  of 
towns,  the  advance  in  status  of  those  already  organized,  and  the 
gradual  substitution  of  municipal  for  tribal  names  in  the  geogra- 
phers' lists  and  in  inscriptions  indicate  a  course  of  development 
as  thorough  as  it  was  gradual. 

The  policy  of  Tiberius  was  extremely  conservative.  During 
his  principate  the  municipalities  of  Spain  enjoyed  protection 
from  corrupt  officials,  speedy  justice,  and  a  continuance  of  the 
advantages  granted  them  by  Augustus.  The  provincials  were 
thus  enabled  to  grow  accustomed  to  their  new  mode  of  life,  and 
to  prepare  themselves  for  additional  privileges  in  the  future. 
The  one  reactionary  policy  of  Tiberius,  his  refusal  to  continue 
the  cult  of  the  living  Augustus,  brought  more  harm  to  its  author 
and  to  the  empire  as  a  whole  than  to  the  people  of  Spain.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  establishment  of  provincial  imperial  cults 
gave  a  religious  unity  to  the  peninsula  and,  as  such,  may  be  re- 
garded as  an  important  contribution  to  its  national  develop- 
ment.1 


1  Epigraphical  evidence  for  the  principate  of  Tiberius  is  listed  in 
CIL,  II,  Suppl.,  pp.  1096-1097.  Literary  sources  are  cited  in  Bouchier, 
Spain  under  the  Eoman  Empire,  p.  56.  For  the  cult  innovations  see  Korne- 
mann,  Zur  Geschichte  der  antiken  Heerscherkulte,  p.  115. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     143 

The  Spanish  provinces  were  affected  to  some  extent  by  the 
administrative  changes  of  Caligula,  under  whom  the  local  mints 
were  closed.  The  prestige  which  had  come  from  judicial  control 
over  the  African  towns  Zilis  and  Icosium  was  removed  when  the 
province  Mauretania  Tingitana  was  formed.  A  number  of  mile- 
stones bearing  the  name  of  Caligula  prove  that  the  provincial 
officials  were  not  remiss  in  their  care  for  the  roads  during  these 
four  years.2 

The  activities  of  Claudius  touched  Spain  even  more  lightly 
than  those  of  his  predecessor.  One  inscription  of  an  individual 
made  a  citizen  "a  divo  Claudio,"  the  cognomen  Claudia  given, 
perhaps,  by  this  princeps  to  Baelo,  and  a  few  milestones,  are  the 
only  records  of  imperial  interest  in  Spain  from  41  to  54  a.d. 
Nero's  principate  passed  without  any  known  changes,  and  even 
the  revolution  of  68-69  a.d.,  although  it  centered  at  first  around 
Spanish  officials,  was  apparently  confined  to  the  military  camps. 
The  brief  rule  of  Otho  resulted  in  additions  to  Baetica  of  some 
portions  of  Mauretania,  and  the  colonies  of  Emerita  and  Hispalis 
were  given  additional  citizens.3 

The  Augustan  scheme  of  administration  had  remained  prac- 
tically unchanged  for  over  eighty  years.  It  had  succeeded  be- 
cause it  gave  to  the  provincials  peace  and  justice.  It  failed  be- 
cause it  afforded  the  provincials  no  opportunities  for  obtaining 
political  equality,  a  failure  which  was  remedied  by  Vespasian. 
There  were  many  reasons  why  Vespasian  should  feel  kindly  dis- 
posed towards  the  Spanish  people.  He  was  a  soldier  who  had 
campaigned  in  Spain,  and  knew  the  natives;  he  was  a  plebeian 
who  had  risen  from  the  ranks  to  the  highest  position  in  the  em- 
pire, and  was  perhaps,  on  that  account,  more  in  sympathy  with 
others  who  had  ambitions ;  his  long  years  in  the  provinces  had 
made  him  less  selfishly  national,  and  more  cosmopolitan ;  his 
accession  had  been  made  easier  by  the  loyalty  of  the  legions  in 


2  For  fiscal  and  judicial  changes  see  Willrichs,  Caligula,  p.  422  and 
note  5;  p.  316  and  note  2.  The  inscriptions  are  listed  in  CIL,  II,  Suppl., 
p.  1097. 

3  CIL,  II,  Suppl.,  p.  1097-1098;  cf.  introductory  remarks  under  Baelo, 
Emerita  and  Hispalis. 


.144  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

Spain  to  his  cause;  and  he  posed  as  the  avenger  of  the  unfor- 
tunate Galba.  For  some  or  all  of  these  reasons,  Vespasian  con- 
ferred many  favors  upon  individuals  and  communities  in  Spain. 
Some  veterans  of  the  auxiliary  troops  enrolled  in  Spain  were 
granted  Roman  citizenship  with  honorable  discharges  from  mili- 
tary service.  One  citizen  was  "adlectus  ad  tribunicios;"  an- 
other "adlectus  in  equite."  But  the  most  important  grant  was 
that  of  the  Ius  Latii  to  all  the  stipendiary  communities  which 
were  organized  as  towns.  The  effects  of  this  grant  were  twofold  : 
it  gave  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  towns  affected  an  advanced  legal 
status,  and  it  gave  to  the  families  of  the  municipal  executives  the 
full  rights  of  Roman  citizenship.  The  actual  extent  of  this  grant 
cannot  be  determined  with  accuracy.  It  did  not  make  all  the 
Iberians  Romans,  as  Josephus  reported,  nor  did  it  apply  to  all 
the  stipendiary  towns  of  Pliny's  lists.  Within  the  years  which 
followed  the  reorganization  of  Augustus  many  changes  must 
have  taken  place  of  which  no  record  has  been  found.  New  towns, 
no  doubt,  had  come  into  existence,  and  others  had  been  reduced 
to  the  dependent  status  of  pagus  or  civitas  contributa.  Still,  the 
economic  development  of  Spain  under  the  Julians,  and  the  great 
number  of  new  towns  with  the  cognomen  Flavia  favor  the  as- 
sumption that  Vespasian's  grant  affected  a  number  of  towns 
equal  to  that  given  by  Pliny.4 

Tests  of  municipal  advance  in  status  under  the  Flavians  may 
be  made  by  listing  the  towns  whose  citizens  were  enrolled  in  the 
tribe  Quirina ;  those  which  bore  the  cognomen  Flavia ;  and  those 
which  possessed  the  Flavian  name  in  some  other  form. 

Baetica  Lusitania  Citerior 

Quirina    15  6  11 

Mun.   Flav 13  1  12 

Other  towns   ....  6 

This  table  indicates  that  Baetica  received  the  greatest  share 
of  benefit  from  this  grant,  inasmuch  as  the  number  of  communi- 

4  Newton,  Epigraphical  evidence  for  the  reigns  of  Titus  and  Vespasian, 
also  gives  the  literary  references.  Proof  of  the  pacification  of  the  north- 
west may  be  found  in  the  withdrawal  of  two  legions  from  that  district. 
See  Pfitzner,  Geschichte  der  rbmischen  Kaiserlegionen,  99. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     145 

ties  elevated  in  status  was  proportionately  greater  than  in  Lusi- 
tania  or  Citerior.  This  was  due  to  the  advanced  municipal  de- 
velopment in  that  province,  rather  than  to  the  favoritism  of  the 
princeps.  The  new  Flavian  foundations  were  in  the  northwest, 
where  civilization  was  being  rapidly  acquired. 

Among  the  other  proofs  of  Vespasian's  activities  in  Spain, 
the  greatest  interest  attaches  to  a  letter  from  the  princeps  to  the 
officials  and  senators  of  Sabora  in  Baetica.  This  letter  is  a  favor- 
able reply  to  a  request  of  the  townspeople.  It  not  only  grants 
permission  to  move  the  town  from  the  hills  to  the  plain,  and  to 
retain  control  of  those  revenues  which  Augustus  had  assigned  to 
it,  but  also  advises  the  young  municipality  as  to  the  proper 
method  of  making  other  requests,  namely,  through  the  procon- 
sul. Baetica  was  a  senatorial  province,  but  in  this  instance  Ves- 
pasian accepted  the  administrative  headship  as  readily  as  it  was 
granted  by  the  provincials  when  they  addressed  him  directly. 
The  inscription  also  shows  that  advance  in  status  did  not  neces- 
sarily bring  with  it  increase  in  revenues.  Just  what  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  Latin  right  were  to  the  townspeople  in  the  time 
of  Vespasian  cannot  be  stated  with  certainty.  It  is  possible  that 
the  ius  commercii  encouraged  local  industry.  At  any  rate,  by  the 
end  of  the  first  century  a.d.,  Roman  and  Italian  merchants  hadp 
retired  from  the  field  in  favor  of  Spanish  dealers.  The  most  im- 
portant source  material,  found  in  the  extant  portions  of  the 
Leges  Salpensana  and  Malacitana,  does  not  touch  upon  the  rights 
and  powers  of  the  individual  citizens.5 

The  Iberian  peninsula,  by  100  a.d.,  was  an  integral  part  of  the/ 
Roman  world.  The  tide  of  influence  had  shifted  with  the  conW 
plete  romanization  of  Spain,  and  the  steadily  increasing  reaction 
culminated  in  the  choice  of  a  Spaniard  as  the  first  provincial 
princeps.  A  study  of  the  Spanish  influence  on  Rome  is  of  equal 
importance  to  that  of  the  romanization  of  Spain. 


5  Parvan,  Die  Nationalitat  der  Kaufleute. 


146  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 


BIBLIOGEAPHY 

Monumental  Sources 

L'Annee  epigraphique.    Paris,  1888- 
Bruns,  K.  G. 

Fontes  iuris  Bomani  antiqui.     2  v.  in  1.     Tubingen,  1909. 
Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum.     II,  ed.  Hiibner.     Berlin,  1869.     Ibid., 

XV,  2  ed.  H.  Dressel.    Berlin,  1899,  p.  562  ff. 
Dessau,  H. 

Inscriptiones  Latinae  selectae.    3  v.    Berlin,  1892-1914. 
Ephemeris  Epigraphica.    VIII.    Berlin,  1899,  pp.  351-528. 

Ibid.,  IX.    Berlin,  1913,  pp.  12-185. 
Heiss,  Alois. 

Description  generale  des  monnaies  de  VEspagne.    Paris,  1870. 
Inscriptionum  Hispaniae  Latinarum  supplementum.    ed.  Hiibner.    Berlin, 

1892. 
Macdonald,  George,  ed. 

Catalogue  of  Greek  coins  in  the  Hunterian  collection.     3  v.     Glasgow, 
1905.     (Vol.  3  contains  Iberian  and  Roman  coins). 
Mommsen,  C.  M.  T. 

Histoire  de  la  monnaie  romaine.    Trad,  par  le  Due  de  Blacas  et  publiee 
par  J.  De  Witte.     3  v.     Paris,  1873.     (See  index  in  vol.  3,  p.  519, 
under  Espagne). 
Orelli,  J.  K.  VON 

Inscriptionum  Latinarum  selectarum  amplissimo  collectio.     3  v.     Turici, 
1828-56;  vol.  3,  ed.  Henzen. 
Wilmanns,  Gustavus. 

Exempla  inscriptionum  Latinarum  .  .  .  composuit  G.  Wilmanns.     2  v. 
Berlin,  1873. 

ZOBEL  DE  ZANGRONIZ,  JACOBO. 

Estudio  historico  de  la  moneda  antiqua  espanola.    2  v.    Madrid,  1878-80. 


Literary  Sources 

Appiani  historia  romana.  Vol.  1,  ed.  Ludovicus  Mendelssohn,  Lipsiae, 
1879;  vol.  2,  ed.  P.  Viereck,  Lipsiae,  1905. 

C.  Iulii  Caesaris  de  bello  civili  commentarii,  iterum  ed.  H.  Meusel.  Ber- 
lin, 1912. 

M.  T.  Ciceronis  pro  L.  Cornelio  Balbo  oratio  .  .  .  ed.  James  S.  Eeid. 
Cambridge,  1904. 

M.  Tulli  Ciceronis  epistulae  Vol.  II.  Epistulae  ad  Atticum,  recog.  L.  C. 
Purser.     Oxonii,  1903. 

Dionii  Cassii  Cocceiani  historia  Romana  .  .  .  ed.  Ioannes  Melber.  Lipsiae, 
1890-94. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     147 

Diodorus  Siculus:   Bibliotheca  historica  .  .  .  ed.  Fridericus  Vogel.     Lip- 
siae, 1888-1906. 
Eutropi  breviarium  ab  urbe  condita,  recog.  Franciscus  Euehl.     Lipsiae, 

1901. 
Lucii  Annaei  Flori  epitome  rerum  Romanarum  .  .  .  ed.  N.   E.  Lemaire. 

Paris,  1827. 
Aulus    Gellius:    Noctium   Atticarum    libri   XX   editio    minor    altera,      ed. 

Martinus  Hertz.     Lipsiae,  1886. 
Titi  Livi  ab  urbe  condita  libri  .  .  .  ed.  M.  Mueller.     Lipsiae,  1908-1912. 
Orosius,  Paulus:  Historiarum  adversum  paganos  libri  VII  ex  recognitione 

C.  Zangemeister.     Lipsiae,  1889. 
P.  Ovidius  Naso:    ex  iterata  R.   Merkelii  recognitione.     V.   3.     Lipsiae, 

1911. 
C.  Plini  Secundi  naturalis  historiae  .  .  .  ed.   Carolus  Mayhoff.     Lipsiae, 

1892-1909. 
Plutarchi  vitae      recognovit  Theod.  Doemner.     Paris,  1877. 
Polybii    historiae  .  .  .  ed.    Theodoras    Buettner-Wobst.      Lipsiae,    1889- 

1905. 
Ptolemaeus,    Claudius:    Geographia    e    codicibus    recognovit  .  .  .  Carolus 

Miillerus.     Vol.  1,  partes  1-2.     Paris,  1883-1901. 
Sallustius   Crispus,   Gaius:    Catilina,   Jugurtha,   ex   historiis,   orationes   et 

epistulae,  ed.  A.  Eussner.     Lipsiae,  1897. 
Sextus  Rufus  (Festus) :  Festi  breviarium  rerum  gestarum  populi  Romani 

ed.  Carolus  Wagner.    Lipsiae,  1886. 
Strabonis  Geographica,  recognovit  Augustus  Meineke,  editio  stereotypa. 

Lipsiae,  1904-09. 
C.    Suetoni    Tranquilli    opera  .  .  .  recensuit    Maximilianus    Ihm.     editio 

minor.     Lipsiae,  1908. 
Cornelii  Taciti  libri  qui  supersunt  quartum  recognovit  Carolus  Halm.  ed. 

stereotypa.     Lipsiae,  1911-12. 
C.   Vellei  Paterculi   ex  historiae   Romanae  libris   duobos   quae  supersunt 

.  .  .  ed.  Carolus  Halm.     Lipsiae,  1876. 
Zonaras,  Joannes:  Epitome  historiarum.     ed.  L.  Dindorf.     Lipsiae,  1868-71. 

Secondary  Works 
'  Albertini,  Eugene. 

Les   etrangers   residant    en    Espagne   a   I'epoque   romaine,   in    Melanges* 
Cagnat.     Paris,  1912,  pp.  297-318. 
'  Alemany  y  Bolufer,  Jose. 

La  geografia  de  la  peninsula  iberica  en  los  textos  de  los  escritores  griegos 
y  latinos.     Madrid,  1912. 
Altamira  y  Crevea,  Rafael. 

Historia  de  Espana  y  de  la  civilizacion  espanola.     Ed.   2.     Barcelona, 
1909.    4  v.    Vol.  1. 
Archdologischer  Anzeiger.     Beiblatt  zum  Jahrbuch  des  kaiserlichdeutschen 
archaologischen  Instituts.     (Reports  of  Pierre  Paris)   1904-14. 


148  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     LVoL-  4 

Arnold,  W. 

Studies  of  Roman  Imperialism.     Ed.  by  Edward  Fiddes.     Manchester, 
1906.     (Cp.  IV,  The  Organization  of  Spain). 
Barbagallo,  Conrado. 

II  prezzo  del  frumenti  in  Ispagna,  in   Vierteljahrschrift  fur  Social  und 
Wirthschaft-Gesehichte,  IV  (1906),  pp.  653-57. 
Beloch,  K.  I.  A. 

Die  Bevolkerung  der  griechisch-rdmischen  Welt.     Leipzig,  1886. 
Berard,  Victor. 

Les  Phoeniciens  et  I'Odyssee.    2  v.    Paris,  1902-03. 
Berger,  F. 

Ueber  die  Heerstrassen  des  romischen  Beichs.     Ostern,  1882-83. 
Beurlier,  E. 

Le    culte    imperiale;   son    histoire    et   son   organisation    depuis    Auguste 
jusqu'a  Justinien.    Paris,  1891. 

BlENKOWSKI,  P.  VON. 

Kritische  Studien   uber  Chronologie  und  GescMchte  des  Sertorianischen 
Krieges,  in  Wiener  Studien,  1891,  pp.  129-58,  210-30. 
Blumner,  Hugo. 

Die  geicerbliche  Tlidtiglceit  der  Volker  des  classiscJien  Alterthums.     Leip- 
zig, 1869. 

Technologie  und  Terminologie  der  Geiverbe  und  Kunst  bei  den  Griechen 
und  Bdmcm.    4  v.    Leipzig,  1857-87.    (Vol.  1,  2nd  ed.    Berlin,  1912.) 

BOISSONADE,   P. 

Les   etudes   relatives  a  I'histoire   economique   de   I'Espagne   et   leurs  re- 
snltats,  in  Revue  de  syntliese  historique,  XXI-XXII  (1910-11). 
Boletin  de  la  real  academia  de  la  historia.     Madrid,  1877-1914. 
Bonsor,  Jorge. 

Los  pueblos  antiguos  del  Guadalquivir  y  las  alfarerias  romanas,  in  Re- 
vista  de  Areliivos,  V,  pp.  837-857. 
Bouchier,  E.  S. 

Spain  under  the  Roman  Empire.     Oxford,  1914. 
Braun,  Fr. 
'   Die  Provincialeinteilung  Spaniens  in  romischer  Zeit.    Diss.     Berlin,  1908. 
'   Die  Entwiehlung  der  spanischen  Provincialgrenzen  in  romischer  Zeit,  in 
Sieglin's  Quellen  und  Forschungen,  Heft  17,     Berlin,  1909. 
Brietenbach,  Th. 

Das  Goldvorkommen  im  nordlichen  Spanien,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  pralrtische 
Geologie,  I  (1893),  pp.  17  ff.,  49  ff. 

BtJCHSENSCHUTZ,   BERNHARD. 

Die  Hauptstatten  des  Geiverbpeisses  im  Tclassichen  Alterthume.     Leipzig, 

1869. 
Burke,  IT.  "R. 

History  of  Spain  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  death  of  Ferdinand  the 

Catholic.     Ed.  2.     Edited  with  an  introduction  by  M.  A.  S.  Hume. 

London,  1900.    Vol.  I,  cps.  1-5. 


1916]   Yan  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     149 

Bury,  J.  B. 

A   history  of  the.  Roman  Empire  from  its  foundations  to  the  death  of 
Marcus  Aurelius.     (The  Student's  series).     London,  1904. 
Campos  y  Munilla,  Manuel  de. 

La  escultura  de  Diana  Cazadora  descubierta  en  Italica.    Sevilla,  1908. 
Caron. 

Bericht  iiber  ein  Instructionsreise  nach  Spanien  im  Jahre  1878,  in  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  den  Berg-,  Kiitten-,  und  Salinenwesen,  XXVIII   (1880), 
pp.  105-147. 
Castan,  Auguste. 

Les  capitoles  provinciaux  des  monde  remain.    Besan^on,  1886. 
Cean-Bermudez,  Juan. 

Sumario  de  las  antigiiedades  romanas  que  hay  en  Espaiia.    Madrid,  1832. 
Ciccotti,  E. 

/  sacerdozi  municipali  e  provinciali  delta  Spagna,  in  Bivista  di  Filologia, 
XIX  (1891),  pp.  1-84. 
Daremberg,  C.  V.  ET  Saglio,  E. 

Dictionnaire  des  antiquites  grecques  et  romaines.    4  v.    Paris,  1877-date. 
Desdivises  des  Dezert,  G. 

Espagne:   antiquite  et  moyen  age,  in  Revue  de  synthese  historique,  II 
(1904),  p.  201  ff. 
Dessau,  H. 

Die  Herkunft   der   Offiziere   und   Beamten   des   romischen    Kaiserreichs 
wahrend  der  ersten  zwei  Jahrhunderte  seines  Bestehens,  in  Hermes, 
XLV  (1910),  pp.  1-26,  465. 
Detlefsen,  D. 

Die  Anordnung  des  geographischen  Biicher  des  Plinius  und  ihre  Quellen, 

in  Sieglin's  Quellen  und  Forschungen,  Heft  18.     Berlin,  1909. 
Die  Erdkarte  Agrippas,  ibid.,  Heft  13,  Berlin,  1906. 
Die  Geographie  der  Provinz  Baetica  bei  Plinius,  in  Philologus,  XXX,  pp. 

265-310. 
Die  Geographie  der  Provinz  Lusitania  bei  Plinius,  ibid.,  XXXII,  p.  600  ff. 
Die  Geographie  der  tarraconensischen  Provinz  bei  Plinius,  ibid.,  XXXVI, 

p.  Ill  ff. 
Varro,  Agrippa  und  Augustus  als  Quellenschriftstellen  des  Plinius  fur 
die  Geographie  Spaniens,  in  Comment ationes  philologicae  in  honorem 
Th.  Mommseni.    Berlin,  1877,  p.  23  ff. 

DlERCKS,   GUSTAV. 

Geschichte  Spaniens  von  den  fruhesten  Zeiten  bis  auf  die  Gegenwart.    2  v. 

Berlin,  1895-96.    Vol.  I,  p.  32  ff. 
Domaszewski,  Alfred  von. 

Die  Benefiziarierposten  und  das  romische  Strassennest,  in  Jahreshefte  des 

Oesterr.  Archaeol.  Instituts,  1902. 
Geschichte  des  romischen  Kaiser.    2  v.    Leipzig,  1909. 
Die  Bangordnung  des  romischen  Heeres,  in  Bonner  Jahrb.,  Heft  CXVII 

(1908),  pp.  1-278.     See  pp.  86,  126  ff.,  198  ff. 


150  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

Dunham,  Samuel  A. 

Spain  and  Portugal.      (Lardner's  Cabinet  of  History).     5  v.     Vol.  I. 
pp.  30-97. 
Egelhaaf,  Gotlob, 

AnaleTcten  zur  GeschicMe  des  zweiten  punischen  Krieges,  in  Historische 
Zeitschrift,  LIII  (1884),  p.  480  ff. 
Espana;  sus  monumentos  y  artes,  su  naturaleza  y  historia.    22  v.     Barcelona, 

1884-91. 
Excavation es  de  Numancia;  memoria  .  .  .  por  la  Comision  Ejecutiva.     Ma- 
drid, 1912. 
Feliciani,  Xicola. 

L'Espagne   a   la  fin   du  Hie  siecle  avant  J.-C.   in  Boletin   de   la   reai 
academia  de  la  historia,  XL VI,  pp.  363-98. 
Fertig,  H. 

Spanien;   Land  und  Leute  in  den  letzten  Jahrhunderten   vor  Christus. 
Bamberg,  1902. 
Fiske,  G.  C. 

Notes   on    the   worship   of   the   Boman   emperors   in   Spain,   in   Harvard 
Studies  in  Classical  Philology,  XI  (1900),  pp.  101-39. 
Florez,  Henrique. 

Espana  Sagrada.     51  v.     Madrid,  1767-1879. 

Medallas  de  las  eolonias,  municipios  y  pueblos  antiguos  de  Espana.     3  v. 
Madrid,  1757-73. 

FOURER,   E. 

Ephemeridcs  Caesarianae  rerum   inde  ab   ineunte  hello  Afrieano  ad   ex- 
tremum  helhim  Hispaniense  gestarum.     Diss.  Bonn,  1889. 
Frank,  Tenny. 

Boman  imperialism.     New  York,  1914. 
Friedlander,  Ludwig. 

Darstellungen  aus  der  Sittengeschichte  Boms.    8te  Anflage.    Leipzig,  1912. 
Gardthausen,  Viktor. 

Augustus  und  seine  Zeit.    2  v.    Leipzig,  1891-1904. 
Geiger,  Friedrich. 

Be     saeerdotibus     Augustorum     munitipalibus,     in     Diss,     philologicae 
Halenses.  XXIII,  1  (1913). 
Geographisches  Jahrbuch,  XXXIV   (1911),  pp.   77-90   (Bibliographical  re- 
port by  A.  S(dmlten). 
Gotzfried,  Karl. 

Annalen    der  romischen  Provinzen   beider  Spanien,   218-154.     Diss.   Er- 
langen,  1907. 
Habler,  Albin. 

Die  Nord-   und    WestJciiste   Hispaniens,   tin   Btitrag   zur   Gcschiehtc   der 
antiken    Geographie.     Leipzig,   1886.     Program   des   Kgl.   Gymn.   in 
Leipzig. 
Halgan. 

Essai    sur    l' administration    des    provinces    senatoriales    sous    V Empire 
romain.     Paris,  1898. 


1916]   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     151 

Hardy,  E.  G. 

Boman  laws  and  charters.     Oxford,  1912. 
Studies  in  Boman  history.     London,  1906. 
Herold,  Eduard. 

Die  deutschen  Ausgrabungen  in  u-?id  um  Numantia   (1905-12),  in  Blat- 
ter fur  Gymnasial-Schulwesen,  Band  50,  Heft  3   and  4.     Mlinchen, 
1914.     p.  113-24. 
Hertzberg,  G.  F. 

Gesehichte  des  romischen  Kaiser reichs.     Leipzig,  1899. 
Herzog,  Ernst. 

Gesehichte  und  System  der  romischen  Staatsverfassung.     2  v.     Leipzig, 
1884.     Vol.  I,  349  f.,  434-36. 
Hirschfeld,  Otto. 

Kleine  Schriften.     Berlin,  1913: 

VI.  Die  Organization  der  drei  Gallien  durch  Augustus. 
XXII.  Zur  Gesehichte  des  Lateinischen  Eeehtes. 
XXVI.  Die  Verwaltung  der  Eheingrenze. 

XXXV.  Zur    Gesehichte    des    romischen    Kaiserkultus.      Eeprinted 
from  Sitzungsb.  d.  Jc.  preussichen  ATcad.  d.  Wiss.  zu  Berlin,  1888, 
zweiter  Halbband. 
XXXVIII.  Die  Grundbesitz  der  romischen  Kaiser. 
LXVIII.  Zur  Gesehichte  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit. 
His,  .'Rudolf. 

Die  Domanen  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit.    Leipzig,  1896. 

HUBNER,  E. 

Bomische  Heerschaft  in  Westeuropa.     Berlin,  1890. 

Nuevas  fuentes  para  la  geografia  antigua  de  Espana,  in  Boletin  de  la 
real  academia  de  la  historia,  XXXIV   (1890),  pp.  465-503;  XXXVI 
(1900),  pp.  402-408. 
Hume,  M.  A.  S. 

The  Spanish  people:  their  origin,  growth  and  influence.    New  York,  1909. 
Institut  d'estudis  Catalans  .  .  .  Anuari.     Barcelona,  1907-. 
Jahresbericht   iiber  die   Fortschritte   der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft. 
Berlin  and  Leipzig,  LXXVIII  (1893)  and  XC  (1896),  Bibliographi- 
cal reports  by  D.  Detlefsen. 
Joulin,  Leon. 

Les  ages  protohistoriques  dans  le  sud  de  la  France  et  dans  la  peninsula 
hispanique,  in  Bevue  Arch.,  oer.  4,  XVI   (1910). 
Jung,  Julius. 

Geographic  und  politische  Gesehichte  des  Idassischen  Altertums,  in  Iivan 

Muller's  Handbuch,  III,  1,  p.  95  ff. 
Die  romanischen  Landschaften  des  romischen  Beiches.     Innsbruck,  1881, 
pp.   1-89. 

KlEPERT,   H. 

Beitrag  zur  alten  Ethnographie  der  iberischen  Halbinsel,  in  Monatsbe- 
richte  der  ATcad.  zu  Berlin,  1864.     p.  143-65. 


152  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     [Vol.  4 

Formae  orbis  antiqui.     Berlin,   1901.     No.  XXVII,  Hispania    (Cf.  the 

maps  in  CIL,  II,  Suppl.). 
Manual  of  ancient  geography.     London,  1881. 
Klotz,  Alfred. 

Quaestiones  Plinianae  geographicae  in  Sieglin's  Quellen   und  Forschun- 

gen,  Heft  11,  Berlin,  1906. 
Die  Schlacht  von  Munda,  in  Neue  Jahrbiicher  filr  das  Massische  Alter- 

tum,  XII  (1909),  pp.  560-573. 
Braun,  Fr.,  Die  EntwicJclung  (a  review  in)  Gottinger  GeleJirter  Anzeigcr, 

1910,  p.  405  ff. 

KORNEMANN,    E. 

Die  Dioezesen  der  Provinz  Hispania  Citerior,  in  Klio,  HE,  2,  pp.  323-325. 
Die  Entstehung  der  Provinz  Lusitanien,  in  Festschrift  fur  0.  Hirschfeld, 

Berlin,  1903,  pp.  221-233. 
Zur  Geschichte  der  Gracchenzeit,  in  Klio,  Beiheft  1   (1903). 
Die  neue  Livius  Epitome  (Oxyr.  papyr.  5,  no.  668),  in  Klio,  Beiheft  2 

(1904).     Cf.  Klio,  V  (1905-06),  p.  135. 
Zur  Geschichte  der  antilcen  Heerscherkulte,  in  Klio,  I  (1901),  pp.  51  ff. 
Krascheninnikoff,  M. 

JJeber    die    Einfiihrung    des    provinzialen    Kaiserlcultus    im    romischen 

West  en,  in  Philologus,  LIU,  p.  147  ff. 
Kritischer   Jahresbericht    uber    die   Fortschritte    der    roman.    Philologie,    V 

(1903),  pt.  Ill,  pp.  33-49  (Bibliographical  report  by  Coelho). 

KUBITSCHEK,  J. 

De  Bomanarum  trxbuum  origine  ac  propagatione.    Wien,  1882. 
Imperium  Bomanum  tributim  descriptum.    Vindobonae,  1889. 
Lafuente,  Modesto. 

Historia  general  de  Espana.     15  v.     Madrid,  1861-66.     Vol.  I. 
•  Leger,  Alfred. 

Les  travaux  publics,  les  mines  et  la  metallurgie  aux  temps  des  Bomains. 
Paris,  1875. 
Lembke,  F.  W. 

Geschichte  Spaniens.    Hamburg,  1831.    Vol.  I. 
Liebenam,  W. 
N  Fasti  consulares   imperii  Bomani  von  30  B.C.   bis  565  A.D.,  in  Kleine 
Texte   fur  theologische   und   philologische   Vorlesungen,   Nos.   41-43. 
Bonn,  1910. 
Stadteverwaltung  im  romischen  Kaiserreiche.     Leipzig,  1900. 
Zur  Geschichte  und  Organisation  des  romischen  Yereinswesen.     Leipzig, 
1890. 
Malle,  Dureau  de  la. 

ficonomie  politique  des  Bomains.     2  v.     Paris,  1840. 
Mariana,  Juan  de. 

Historia  general  de  Espana.     2  v.     15a  impr.,  Madrid,  1780-82. 
Marquardt,  K.  J. 

Bomische   Staatsverwaltung,   in   Handbuch   der   romischen   Alterthiimer. 
Leipzig,  1871-88. 


19161   Van  Nostrand:  Reorganization  of  Spain  by  Augustus     153 

Organisation   de  V 'empire  romain,  trad.  .  .  .  par  P.  Louis-Lucas  et  A. 
Weiss,  in  Manuel  des  antiquites  romaines,  Paris,  1889-92. 
Martins,  J.  P.  O. 

Historia  de  la  civilizacion  lb  erica.     Traduccion  de  Don  Luciano  Tax- 
onera.     Madrid,  1894. 
Mispoulet,  J.  B. 

Les  institutions  politiques  des  romains.     2  v.     Paris,  1883.     Vol.  2,  pp. 

87-142. 
Le  regime  des  mines  de  Vepoque  romaine  et  medievale  d'apres  les  tables 

d'Aljustrel.     Paris,  1907. 
Transformations  de  VEspagne  durant  les  trois  premiers  siecles  de  V em- 
pire romain,  in  Bevue  de  philologie,  1910,  pp.  301-328. 
Mommsen,  C.  M.  T. 

History  of  Borne,  tr.  ...  by  W.  P.  Dickson,  new  ed.     5  v.     New  York, 

1908. 
Lex  coloniae  Iuliae  Genetivae  Urbanorum  sive  Ursonensis,  in  Juristische 

Schriften,  Berlin,  1905.     Vol.  I,  pp.  194-209. 
Legis  coloniae  Genetivae  c.  LXI-LXXXII,  in  Juristische  Schriften,  Ber- 
lin, 1905.     Vol.  I,  pp.  240-264. 
1  The  provinces  of  the  Boman  Empire  from  Caesar  to  Diocletian.     2  v. 
London,  1909. 
Bes  Gestae  divi  Augusti,    iterum  edidit.     Berlin,  1893. 
Die  Stadtrechte  der  lateinischen  Gemeinden  Salspensa  und  Malaca  in  der 
Provinz   Baetica,   in   Abhandlungen   der   K.    Sachs.    Gesellschaft   der 
Wissenschaft,  Bd.  3;  also  in  Juristische  Schriften,  Berlin,  1905.    Vol. 
1,  pp.  265-382. 
Bomisches  Staatsrecht,  in  Handbuch  der  rbmischen  Alterthiimer.    Leipzig, 
1871-88. 
Newton,  H.  C. 

Epigraphical  evidence  for  the  reigns  of  Titus  and   Vespasian.     Ithaca, 
1902. 
Niese,  B. 

Staat  und  Gesellschaft  der  Bomer,  in  Hinnebergs  Die  Kultur  der  Gegen- 
wart,  II,  4,  1.     pp.  208-262. 
Othmer,  W. 

Die  Voile erstdmme  von  Hispania  Tarraconensis  in  der  Bomerzeit   (Kap. 
I-VI).     Diss.  Berlin,  1904. 
Parthey,  H. 

Die  iberische  Halbi7isel  bei  Pomponius  Mela,  in  Monatsbericht  der  Akad. 
zu  Berlin,  1865,  pp.  528-540. 
Parvan,  Vasile. 

Die  Nationalitat  der  Eaufleute  im  rbmischen  Kaiserreiche.    Breslau,  1909. 
Pauly,  A.  F.  von. 

Paulys  real  Encyclopaedic  der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft.  Neue 
Bearbeitung  von  Georg  Wissowa.  Stuttgart,  1896-date.  Vols.  I- 
VIII,  1  and  Ia,  1. 


154  University  of  California  Publications  in  History     1 VoL-  4 

Pfitzner,  w. 

GescJiichte  der  romischen  Kaiserlegionen   von  Augustus   bis  Hadrianus. 
Leipzig,  1881. 
Eada  y  Delgado,  Juan  de  Dios  de  la. 

Necropolis  de  Carmona.     Madrid,  1865. 
Revista  de  archivos,  bibliotecas  y  museos,  Tercera  epoca,  Madrid,  1897-. 
Rios,  Demetrio  de  los. 

Memoria  arqueologico-descriptiva  del  anfiteatro  de  Italica.    Madrid,  1S62. 
Rosseeuw  Saint  Hilaire. 

Histoire  d'Espagne.     9  v.     Paris,  1846-79. 
Schiller,  Hermann. 

GescMchte  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit.     2  v.     Gotha,  1883-87. 

GescJiichte   des   romischen   Eaiserreichs   unter   der  Regierung   des   Nero. 
Berlin,  1872.     (See  index  under  Corduba,  Hispaniae). 

SCHUCKBURGH,   E.   S. 

Punic  wars  in  Spain  between  211  and  206  B.C.,  in  Classical  Review,  VI 
(1892),  p.  381  ff. 

SCHULTEN,    A. 

Ampurias,   eine   Griechenstadt   am   iberischen   Strande,   in   Neue  Jahrb., 
V  (1907),  pp.  334-346. 
'  Martials  Spanische  Gedichte,  in  Neue  Jahrb.,  XI  (1913). 
Numantia,    die   Ergebnisse   der  Ausgrabungen   1905-12.     Band    I,    Die 

Keltiberer  und  ihre  Kriege  mit  Rom.     Miinchen,  1914. 
Die    peregrinen    Gaugemeinden    des    romischen    Reichs,    in    Rheinisches 
Museum,  L,  489-557. 
Soltau,  W. 

Zur  Chronologie  der  hispanischen  Eeldzuge  212-206  vor  Chr.,  in  Hermes, 
XXVI,  1891,  p.  408. 
Stahl,  W. 

De  bello  Scrtoriano.     Diss.  Erlangen,  1907. 

•  Toutain,  J. 

Les  cultes  pa'iens  dans  V empire  romain.    Premiere  partie:  Les  provinces 
latines.     Tome  I.     Paris,  1907. 
,  Waltzing,  J.  P. 

Etude  historique  sur  les  corporations  professionelles  chez  les  Romains. 
4  v.     Louvain,  1896-1900. 
Weber,  Max. 

Rbmische  Agrargeschichte.     Leipzig,  1891. 
Weber,  W. 

Untersuchungen  zur  GescMchte  des  Kaiser  Hadrianus.     Leipzig,  1907. 

Willrichs,  U. 

Caligula,  in  Klio,  III,  pp.  85  ff.,  288  ff.,  397  ff. 

•  WlLSDORF,   D. 

Fasti  Hispaniarum  provinciarum,  in  Leipzig er  Studien,  I  (1878),  pp.  63- 
140. 
ZlMMEEMANN,  R. 

Posidonius  und  Strabo.  in  Hermes,  XXIII  (1888),  pp.  103-130. 


B  a  ret  no 


0arlo5a 


>/ 


< 


Pollentia     ^* 


Abdera 


—     Provincial     Boundaries. 
■""•     Conventus     Boundaries. 
Roman      Roads . 

-  Colts    founded    tempore    rVxjosti 

-  Cults   founded      K  -  100  A.D. 


F  CALF       .v*   LIBR/ 


(F23B 


SR*i13 


^£S»- 


319268  I 

f 
If 


i  i 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


